Blog
-
Dithering in Afghanistan?
Yesterday, 8
American soldiers died in two separate
incidents in Afghanistan, making October one of
the deadliest months in that war. Meanwhile,
former Vice President Dick Cheney has been
saying that President Obama is “dithering”
in making a decision about what to do next.
What kind of decision-making is needed here,
and what do we expect of our leaders, and
ourselves?
This morning the pressure to take decisive action in Afghanistan grew as Matthew Hoh, a former Marine who fought in Iraq, and has served in the Foreign Service in Afghanistan, up and quit. He says the war there is a mistake – largely an internal civil war in which the U.S. can only play a marginal role. No matter which way the president turns, there’s no clear path.
I’m not a great fan of endless planning – thinking over every option, turning over every stone. At some point, such discussions can become counterproductive. I often see people bogged down, unable to move ahead, paralyzed by fear and doubt, plagued by too much information, even a lack of clarity in purpose.
So, here we find ourselves engaged in Afghanistan and wondering what to do next, and I ask:
• In such situations, is being decisive about the ability to make a quick and firm decision?
• Is being strong equal to taking a position and then holding fast to it; what about when contradictory evidence starts to emerge?
• When does being deliberate blur into being unable or unwilling to make a clear decision?
Of course, such questions have been around forever, and I’ve seen them rear their head in various studies I’ve done over the years on politics and public life and as part of on-the-ground initiatives in communities. But what I am finding so provocative about the president’s approach is that we are witnessing a clear clash in leadership styles on a profound question for our nation, the people of Afghanistan, and the American soldiers who may be put in harm’s way. What to do next?
Indeed, what do we want from our leaders when it comes to an issue like Afghanistan? Do we take comfort in their determined decisiveness, or discomfort in their deliberation? Do we wonder if they know what they’re doing if they keep consulting with others; or do we fear their certainty and independence if they seem to be heading down their own path? I recognize that there are no hard and fast rules here; nor is there necessarily any kind of knee-jerk response. And yet, we are each asked to judge this situation because we are watching it unfold before our very eyes, and because we are part of this nation.
Moreover, it only seems to reason that such discussions about leadership affect all of us, in our own daily activities. What risks are we willing to take to deliberate? When does enough time, information and input, become too much? And how willing are we to stand up to opposing or counter forces to articulate what we believe in how we approach decisions – and why?
I’m not arguing one way or the other about how policy in Afghanistan; I’ll leave that for another time. Instead, my question today is about how we decide to engage in our own difficult situations, and why.
So, I’m glad that former Vice President Cheney has come out in opposition to President Obama. This is exactly the kind of examination and debate we all need. Take your place. -
What do you make of “Balloon Boy?”
I can’t help but wonder what
was going on in the minds of those parents who
used their children to gain national attention
flying that home-made balloon. Maybe, at
first, our interests were piqued, but then it
became clear that those parents were dangerous
and deceptive. What do we make of such flagrant
violations of human decency – and where do
they lead us in our own lives?
Of course, there have always been pranks. Think Orson Wells and the War of the Worlds. Now, that was quite a prank! I can think of lots of other pranks closer to home that simply involved my older brother and which I can’t tell you about; or, that I did as part of any number of school athletic teams. Let it be known, I love pranks.
But there are lines to be drawn in what we do. I sometimes worry that we are becoming immune to things like the Balloon Boy episode. We look at them, we know they’re wrong, we shrug our shoulders, and we move on. It’s true that in some ways there’s nothing we can do about them. At times, that‘ll have to be okay.
And yet, I think that as we look away from such events, there is a part of us that becomes numb to them. We inoculate ourselves against them; we tell ourselves that they can’t – no, they won’t! – touch us, won’t disturb us, and we keep moving along. But in the process of inoculation, what becomes of us?
I know what I’m writing here has been written many times before. I suspect some people might say, “Come on, let it go!” But that’s not the threshold I’m using; being present is.
You see, I believe most people are innately good. I’ve come to believe we’re born that way. Based on my experience, I believe almost all people want to do the right thing. The problem is that the conditions surrounding us often tempt us, lead us astray, and get us entangled with the wrong folks or situations.Sometimes we feel that we can’t extricate ourselves – we are unable to see a path out, sometimes succumbing when we want to prevail.
Sometimes we’re just plain weak.
Perhaps it is because of the expanding news media, YouTube, FaceBook and other media outlets and social media that we have more access these days to events like the Balloon Boy. Maybe it is because of this, we feel inundated, even unable to control many things. I’ve done any number of studies on such trends and I hear such confessions from people in many of our on-the-ground initiatives. I’m sympathetic to this point of view.
But I wonder if the effect of this inundation, and inoculation, is that we let ourselves turn away from each other, allowing others, even ourselves, to lower expectations of what we do and who we are. I know none of us can control events like the Balloon Boy; so be it. Honestly, I’m more concerned about what we do. Are we willing to hang on and stay engaged with one another? -
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Most everyone I know was stunned
by President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace
Prize. But it’s not people’s initial
reaction that I want to discuss, but rather
their second and third thoughts, which tell us
a lot about our collective condition. It’s
also something we have the power to do
something about.
I must admit that I was among those who were taken aback when the Nobel Committee named Obama. In fact, I remember going online that morning only to see the headline and wonder if this was some kind of news spoof. Had he achieved enough, yet? Of course, it wasn’t some kind of trick. The Nobel Committee awarded Obama the prize as part of his aspiration-based approach to politics and world peace.
What followed maybe says more about us than about either the Nobel Committee or the president. Those who consider themselves Obama’s loyal opposition came out swinging. Rush Limbaugh said, “This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama." He was joined by a chorus of negativity from his many friends.
But, Limbaugh is not alone. Those who pride themselves as Obama supporters can be heard vehemently heralding the president. It’s as if he can do no wrong, and no one can say anything remotely critical.
I actually liked the responses that came from the two 2008 presidential candidates who ran against each other. Obama said of his Nobel Peace Prize, “Let me be clear. I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations." Senator John McCain was quick to say, “As Americans, we're proud when our president receives an award of that prestigious category."
I know they deftly calibrated their comments before issuing them. But they did so because they care about public life, the fact that they see themselves as part of a larger conversation, and they recognize the potential impact of what they say.
Over the years I have made it a point to take on “both sides” of our political debate when people dig in their heels and simply parrot predictable lines. Let me be clear. I am not in favor a kind of Miss Manners Civility that drains the public square of emotion and candor. When we wring out passion we strip out meaning. Indeed, the answer to people’s anger and anxiety nowadays is not to drive their concerns and them underground, but to listen, engage, and figure out what’s possible for moving ahead.
But here’s the kicker. It is not just pundits, celebrities and politicians who contaminate public life; we must see our own role, too. When we assume hard and fast positions in ways that squeeze out room for others to try out their own views, search for possible common ground, and engage in real debate – well, then, we essentially close down the public realm. And that’s what I think is happening with the Obama peace prize discussion.
I was in Santa Fe the morning the Nobel was announced - working with teams from three communities. That morning, my good friend Karen Aldridge Eason, with whom I’m working on a Kellogg Foundation-support initiative, said to me that I would write about it this week. I told her “No way!” that I didn’t want to jump into this debate. Walking away from me, she replied, “Oh, yes you will!” As usual, Karen was right. I don’t want to stand by and watch the further coarsening of our public discourse and say nothing. There’s more at stake than a prize. -
Where will the Vazquezes go?
I had planned to write today about how so many pundits are now pronouncing President Obama’s presidency in danger of coming apart at the seams; but, then I read a piece in The Washington Post this morning that brought me back to a more-grounded reality. It was about a Virginia family’s slide from middle class to a homeless shelter. I ask you: Isn’t this what we should be focusing on?
The article chronicles the lives of Ron and Yolanda Vazquez and their three children, who have fallen upon hard times. Ron is an engineer who lost his job months ago; his wife, Yolanda, a part-time property manager. They were evicted from their three-bedroom townhouse and are now in their second shelter. Tomorrow, their time at this shelter runs out, too, and they’ll need to move yet again.
The plight of Vazquezes is not uncommon these days. According shelter managers quoted in the Post’s story, they’re seeing schoolteachers, computer technicians, and interior designers come through their doors, not to mention lawyers and mortgage bankers, among others. Like so many families, the Vazquezes never envisioned themselves living in a homeless shelter, five people in one bedroom. But there they are.
So many families are anxiously exhausting their options just to stay together, running through their savings and retirement income, staying with relatives, searching for new jobs, while watching their lives implode, without much power to improve their circumstance.
I have written before about people living on the edge, and how easy it is for people to find themselves slowly, but surely, sliding across the invisible line from normalcy to nightmare. I am reminded, once more, of my time working in a mental health crisis center and seeing people live out such nightmares – one day they were at work or in school, and the next day their lives had seemingly crumbled.
In our society, stories like that of the Vazquezes come and go. They’re often used by politicians to score points, or by newspapers and television stations to gain our interest; but tomorrow, when we move on to the next story, the Vazquezes will be packing their bags and moving their family, still entangled in a seemingly never-ending story. Their pain, their sorrow, their sense humiliation and anger will remain with them. They cannot shake it.
I must admit that I like reading stories about politics and what’s happening, even those silly stories about who is up and who is down. But the truth is that my heart and devotion is with the Vazquezes, and others like them.
As it happens, tomorrow, as the Vazquezes pack up their family, I will also pack my bags to go meet with teams from three communities that are part of our Kellogg Initiative focused on vulnerable children and families. The difference is that I know where my trip will lead me; but what about the Vazquezes?