The Need for Two Parties

 

               Unfortunately, political discourse in our times has grown increasingly vitriolic, polemic, and divisive along party lines. Sadly, we’ve embraced a social-media meme driven paradigm that focuses on savaging the “other-side” without truly setting out the ideas and policies that we believe will solve the problems we face. We regularly denigrate anyone who does not agree with us, or our party, as an enemy of the state, someone who wants to destroy our way of life. This constant barrage of attack-themed information, devoid of any true policy plans, serves only to deepen the chasm that separates us. We’ve forgotten that the “other-side” wants what they believe is best for our nation, and perhaps more importantly, that we need two strong political parties.

               Historically speaking, our country has functioned best when vigorous liberal and conservative parties engage in developing and supporting well-reasoned policy goals which they forward in the legislative process. Through the process of debate, restructuring, and at times compromise, viable policy and law develops. Though it is messy and often frustratingly slow, this process tends to deliver results which best serve the entire body politic. Neither end of the political spectrum owns all the right solutions. Sometimes the answers are found in conservative policy and at other times the liberal view provides the needed solution. When both parties are fully engaged in the process of legislation, we find better solutions. Unfortunately, our current political discourse tends toward demonizing the other side instead of thoughtful policy development and engagement.

                We enjoy and encourage labeling those who differ from us as haters of our country. After all, if I can label someone as an enemy; then I do not need to listen to them and consider what they have to say. We fling epithets and labels at each other without considering the consequences. Rather than listen and build consensus, we push each other further apart through thoughtless insults. True and active listening takes effort and humility, since giving someone else’s ideas thoughtful and serious consideration implies that we do not know it all.

               While in the Army, I served with a General Officer who frequently said, “I’m probably the dumbest person in the room, but I recognize and surround myself with smart people and listen to them.” Everyone chuckled when he said that; but, I knew the truth. He wasn’t very smart at all. I was responsible for a software and hardware platform that enabled senior decision makers to view the battlespace, make decisions, and guide their subordinate units in execution. At least once a week, sometimes more, he summoned me to his office to reteach him how to use the system. And, he was open about his ineptness with automated systems. His strength lay in recognizing an appropriate solution and motivating his subordinates in executing his will. He was quite successful as a leader. His awareness of his strengths and limitations enabled him to listen to others in humility. He truly listened to me when I spoke. He owed much of his success to willingly listening to others, no matter their background or proclivities. As a signal and information operations officer, I found many in the combat arms community dismissive and uninterested in my thoughts based simply on my background and branch, but not this general. He kept completing the mission foremost in his mind, not caring who provided the solution, only that the solution was found and implemented.

               We need to reinvigorate this concept in our political discussions. Too many of us support the idea that all things must go our way all the time. In our zeal for our party, we stymie finding and implementing a viable solution. We elect and support members of congress who rather than work to find solutions, acceptable to a majority, seek to stop any progress. We need to develop the political maturity that recognizes the compromise necessary for a nation as large and as diverse as ours. This starts with how we speak to each other.

               Those who differ from me are not my enemies. They may pursue agendas and solutions to problems that I do not embrace, but I must admit that they want to see a prosperous and successful nation as much as I do. We need to stop talking about oppositional public servants as if they were enemies of the state. When we succumb to the lure of polemic meme oriented political speech, we make progress towards solutions more difficult. The more we utilize speech that divides, the less likely we will build the bridges necessary to work together to develop the solutions to the problems that truly vex us. My fellow citizens of differing beliefs are not the enemy. The true enemies we face are ignorance, bigotry, poverty, injustice, oppression, and their brethren. As long as we categorize those of the “other-side” as the enemy, we will fail to seriously confront those forces that plague us, keeping us from reaching the full potential of the words that start out constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The High Bar of Leadership

 

               “I’m sorry Matt. LTC Richardson will not be able to senior rate you.” I took the news stoically, after all in the Army you take bad news with a straight face; however, inside I was not pleased. It was 1990 and the Army was in the middle of the draw-down from Cold War manning heights. The draw-down meant that the Army was letting go many officers and the competition for continued service was quite intense. Any perceived deficit or abnormality in record could push you into the “also ran” column. My evaluation report would go into my record without any senior rater comments, all because of LTC Richardson’s poor decision making.

               LTC Richardson had become embroiled in an affair. In order to keep his indiscretion secret, he’d repeatedly lied about his movements to his commander. Those lies led to a loss of trust and a relief for cause. Then and now, the Army understands the importance of trust and integrity in leaders. The Army holds those entrusted with leadership to a higher standard. LTC Richardson had lied, violating that trust and was no longer considered worthy of command. The Army was and is not so puritanical as to truly care about marital indiscretion, but it did and does care about the trustworthiness of commanders. And that is how it should be. Those wearing the mantle of leadership and enjoying the associated honors must embrace a high moral standard. The higher the level of leadership, the higher the bar.

               With his conviction in a New York State Court, Mr. Trump forfeited his right to hold the highest office in our country. Admittedly the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit a felon from holding office; but, how can we trust a man who lies continuously and embroiled others in a conspiracy to falsify records in order to lie to the public hoping to gain office. What is to stop him from lying to us once he takes office? I know that many of you may say, “Well, they all lie. What makes him any different?”

               It is true that none of us are infallible. All of us have stumbled at one time or another. But there is a difference between a rare stumble and serial lying compounded with conspiracy. We need to reinvigorate the concept of selecting men and women of high moral character as our leaders. Look into national, state, and local halls of government and you will often find men and women with questionable backgrounds. All parties need to expend more effort in screening those seeking their support in obtaining office through the ballot. We currently endure far too many public officials with thin credentials and with weak moral standards. In some ways, it seems as if the screening criteria is simply mouthing the appropriate catch phrases, an ability to leverage social media, and an expressed fealty to party leadership. When we set the standard so low, it should not surprise us that our government seems ineffective and chaotic. The challenge is developing useful screening criteria. Again, I turn to the military leadership crucible.

               The Army has a catchall regulation which reads something along the lines of, “conduct unbecoming an officer or NCO.” The idea is simple, leaders must comport themselves at a higher standard than those led. Any conduct the command considers “unbecoming” may be grounds for removal and discharge. While the wording is vague, the intent is quite clear. Behave yourself! The ambiguous words kept many of us from engaging in activities which might have curtailed our careers. We understood that careless or reckless behavior might be taken as conduct unbecoming. The Army sets a high standard for those in leadership. At the risk of alienating my nonbelieving friends, I’d like to glance at the following passage from the Bible.

¹ The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. ² Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, ³ not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. ⁴ He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, ⁵ for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? ⁶ He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. ⁷ Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. I Timothy 3:1-7

               I know that I’m talking about secular office and this passage speaks to parochial leadership; but, it includes some particularly salient language. I highlighted the portions that apply to this particular issue; but, I also included the rest as it might prove helpful in considering what other screening criteria we might consider. In this essay, I think it important to consider men and women who are “above reproach” and “well thought of by outsiders.”

               Leaders must avoid personal scandal. They must walk circumspectly. At high office, they must avoid the whiff of disgraceful conduct. They need the gravitas of high moral fiber to navigate the challenging world of leadership. Avoiding the murky areas of immoral conduct on the way up, displays the strength of character needed for high office. They also need the respect of those of the opposite party.

               Being well thought of by outsiders indicates trustworthiness. There are many men and women with whom I may disagree but can work with. I know that they possess a trustworthy heart. At their core, they seek to do the best in any situation. These kind of men and women rise above being mere politicians, approaching the level of statesmen. A statesman does what is best for all involved. Our best leaders, political or otherwise, displayed this characteristic. While they were always party men and women, they understood that at times, party must take a back seat to what was best for the nation or organization. We need more of these kinds of men and women in positions of trust and leadership. Those who cannot navigate the turbulent waters of modern life do not possess the strength of character to lead, especially at high levels.

               Mr. Trump has consistently displayed poor judgement, an inability to handle the truth, or make good decisions. Though we may like his pugnacious, devil-may-care style, we need someone better suited for high office. We need someone less chaotic. We need someone less stained by questionable moral and legal decisions; someone less given to moral turpitude. And at levels in all parties, we need to reinvigorate screening for moral and legal strength in our candidates.