March 28, 2019

Salute in Italian means health. Ironically, Donald Trump is giving people who depend on the Affordable Care Act the one-fingered salute. Without a replacement plan in place, he stays “Trust me.” There is no plan, and, as Trump always says, everyone knows it. Why would anyone trust someone who has lied literally thousands of times as documented by the Washington Post and other outlets?

He wants to kill the Affordable Care Act because it is an Obama/Democratic program. He wants to gut the Special Olympics because it was a Kennedy Era/Democratic program. He wants to throw Puerto Rico to the sharks because they don’t vote at all. When he says “Make America Great Again,” he is saying that he wants to make only a portion of America great again. The vulnerable are not part of his program. America is great just because we take care of the neediest amongst us. Trump reflects our worst instincts. The Mayor of San Juan calls him a bully. For this, Mr. President, I salute you.

March 27, 2019

As a Progressive, I will be the first to acknowledge that the Green New Deal may be a bridge too far for most voters. Despite being aspirational, it is easily mischaracterized and attacked. It is not politically smart. Most voters, especially an overwhelmingly majority of millennials, believe that climate change is the most important issue facing us today. However, despite a much earlier climate crisis, it is apparent that dinosaurs were not wiped out 66 million years ago in an extinction event. Republican President Donald Trump says that the climate crisis is a hoax. Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has used the Green New Deal as a political cudgel. Mike Lee, Republican Senator from Utah, gave one of the most embarrassing and juvenile speeches about climate change that I have ever witnessed.

The Republican Party has no plan to deal with climate change other than just attack the people looking for solutions. This is the same strategy they employed in dealing with healthcare. My only advice to them is that they should be wary of another extinction event.

March 26, 2019

Now that Mueller has decided that Trump was not guilty of the crime of collusion, and Barr has decided that he is not guilty of obstruction of justice, the lingering question that still remains unanswered is, “Why?” Why did Trump reject the intelligence community’s assessment about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election? Why did he lie about the timing of the Trump Tower Russia project? Why did dozens of associates lie about their Russian contacts? Why did Trump wilt when face-to-face with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki? Why did he fire James Comey? Why did six associates plead guilty? Why were there dozens of indictments? Why was there a Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives followed by a cover-up? Why did Republicans change the plank regarding Russia at their convention? Why were they so eager to lift Russian sanctions? Why did he reject warnings about his National Security Advisor? Why does he attack NATO?

I accept that there is no criminal collusion, which leads me to only one other conclusion. He is guilty of criminal incompetence.

March 25, 2019

I recently visited the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City to view the exhibit, Epic Abstractions. It is a terrific show. I am not an art critic or curator, but I think I know that abstract art is often in the eye of the beholder. There is usually much left to the imagination and to interpretation. The better the art, the greater are the possibilities. One aspect that jumped out at me, however, was not open to interpretation. I was struck by how many of the artists emigrated to the United States from their home countries, and became citizens to escape oppressive governments. Rothko, deKooning, Ossorio, and Sterne among others came here to fully enjoy our freedoms, and to express themselves in a nurturing environment.

With the Epic Distraction that is the Trump administration, how many artists are willing to come to the United States today because it is a beacon of freedom of thought and expression? I am afraid that we are no longer that place. We have become a place where we worship the past, and don’t have the courage to look ahead. We vilify people who do not look like “us.” We attack freedom of the press. Great art and freedom of thought will continue unabated, but it may have to find a new home if it hasn’t already.

March 24, 2019

March 24, 2019

My search firm was recently tasked with identifying candidates for the CEO job of a major, international corporation. The company involved has operations and interests in almost every country in the world. It is a multi-billion dollar operation, has tens of thousands of employees, and does business in over 100 languages and currencies around the world. It is the leader in its business. There are many other companies in its business, but no one rivals this company in scope and expertise. The company is growing steadily, but not quite as fast as it would like. It has international arrangements and agreements with dozens of companies on several continents.

The company wants a CEO with corporate experience at both the domestic and international level. Experience with another conglomerate would certainly be helpful. The company wants someone who would understood all of its stakeholders. The company wants someone who could work with all levels of management, its customers, its investors, and the Board of Directors. The candidate should be smart, tough, personable, and creative. He or she should be a good communicator. We identified two candidates.

The first candidate was a female. She was actually married to a former CEO, who passed away suddenly. She was a mother and a grandmother. After her husband’s passing, she went back to law school, having graduated first in her class years before from a very prestigious college. She needed no help in getting in. After graduating from law school, she went to work for a major US corporation as a staff attorney. Having done her work capably, she felt unfulfilled so she asked to be transferred to a line position where she could learn more about how the company operated. She eventually became head of the company’s biggest division in the Northeast. After a successful six years in this position, where she had to deal with some of the worst disasters the company ever faced, she was tapped to run the company’s entire international operation. She was very effective in dealing with foreign governments and international clients. She developed a reputation for being meticulously prepared and tough.

In the interview, she was clearly the smartest person in the room. She had an answer for everything. She was supremely confident. She was assertive, if not abrasive. She seemed annoyed with some of the questioning. She was nice enough, but there was something about her that made us uncomfortable. She acted as if the job was already hers.

The second candidate was a male. He attended a small, private Catholic university for two years before transferring to an Ivy League business school. There was no record of his grades, nor any evidence of his academic achievement. He went to work immediately in his father’s family real estate business, which is where he was until today. He had been married three times, and there were many rumors about inappropriate behavior. He claimed to be very successful despite a string of personal bankruptcies. He was well known in the press as tabloid fodder. His chutzpah was second to none. He reminded us of a combination of P.T. Barnum and The Music Man. He was always selling himself, often at the expense of others. He made a strong case that he knew what we needed to stimulate growth despite having no experience in managing an international conglomerate like ours. He said it was all about leverage. Debt was the answer. He also advocated ripping up most of our agreements with foreign companies in favor of a go-it-alone approach. He said he could drive much better deals, and that we would get “tired of winning.” He said that medical benefits were killing our bottom line, and needed to be addressed. He even advocated doing away with our medical plan.

In the end, despite our recommendation, the company chose the man despite his lack of any tangible qualifications. “He seemed like our kind of guy,” they said. He was a better fit. Regarding the woman, a passage from “To Kill a Mockingbird.” summarized their feelings. “It’s not necessary to tell all you know. It’s not ladylike—in the second place, folks don’t like to have somebody around knowin’ more than they do. It aggravates ’em.”

March 23, 2019

It is a sin to kill a mockingbird, or so I learned from attending the Broadway play last night. It is also a sin not to have read the book, which I am guilty of. Don’t ask, but I will blame it on all of my junior and senior high school teachers. In their defense, I may have read it, but I have no recollection. I don’t think I have even seen the movie starring Gregory Peck either. Both of those omissions will soon be rectified. I am not a theater critic so I will not attempt to critique the actors, the script, the sets, or the stage direction. The question I had going in, however, was why Aaron Sorkin decided to make this story by Harper Lee his initial foray onto the Broadway stage. Now I know.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” is an allegory for our times. The issues it raises are still with us today. Virulent racism is one of the central themes. There is a destructive tension between the have’s and the have-nots. There is a feeling of condescension between classes based on education and job status. There is a legal system biased against African-Americans. Domestic abuse is right there for all to see. The killing of Tom Robinson was central casting for Black Lives Matter. It is depressing to think about how little progress we have actually made.

Harper Lee and Aaron Sorkin leave us with hope, however. Atticus Finch is a flawed, but noble man. He tries to get it right. Maybe he is Bob Mueller. He eschews guns despite being the best shot in town. The message comes through with several examples that we need to spend time in another man’s skin before we can really understand them. People will constantly surprise you if you take the time to get to know them. Violence is not the answer. Dialogue and communication are, and this is what Aaron Sorkin and Jeff Daniels excel at. Mr. President, if you want to see the play, I will buy you a ticket

March 21, 2019

Senator Elizabeth Warren made news recently by her comments recommending that the Electoral College be abolished in favor of the popular vote. It is an issue that most people, including me, don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. The move would certainly advantage Democrats today. Hillary Clinton attracted 3MM more votes than Trump, and 9MM more voters cast votes for Democratic candidates in the mid-terms.

However, without getting into the historic reasons that led to the Electoral College and its endorsement by rural, slave-holding states, she may have a point. The Electoral College clearly gives an advantage to less populace states, all of which have two senators. In addition, the EC is the political equivalent of quantum mechanics. Once a state gets to a critical mass, whether it be blue or red, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign for more votes. As many people in Massachusetts complain, my vote does not count. They say the same thing in Alabama. The concept of one man-one vote would encourage more people to vote.

The Senate itself clearly is an accommodation to smaller states. Montana has the same amount of influence in the Senate as does New York and California. And, as we all know, the President and the Senate control the appointment and confirmation process of Supreme Court justices. So, I could make the case that the presidency, the Senate, and the Supreme Court may not reflect the popular will. That is two and a half of the three arms of government. Maybe Elizabeth Warren has a point.

March 20, 2019

I just finished watching an extensive interview with South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg on MSNBC. He is one of the many Democrats that have declared his candidacy for the presidency. I don’t think he will be the next President of the United States, but he will be a future President of the United States. In the spirit of future disclosure, he is a fellow alumnus, and he was in my daughter’s graduation class. He is smart, and extremely well-spoken. He has thought about the issues, and has a well-crafted response to almost every policy question. He served as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan. He is a Methodist. He is young. He is gay. He is reasonable.

He is not into identity politics. He proposes solutions that cut across racial divisions. He believes that a president should reflect our best values, and should use issues to unite people, and not divide them. While he believes in many progressive issues, he will say in the same breadth that we have to have specific ideas about how to pay for them. He doesn’t take the bait when a Trump trope is dangled in front of him. He stays on message, and does not give an emotional, snarky response.

We may not be ready today for a mayor from a small town, but get ready. He is coming.