Sex, lies and videotapes appear to dominate the dialogue this election cycle. Our electorate seems to be more focused on character traits than on policy proposals. Chances are that eligible voters will select their choice for President based on leaks and innuendo, rather than on what they believe their collective votes will mean for the future of our country. Unfortunately, many are unable to see the forest for the trees. They are unable to understand, or unwilling to consider, the consequences of their selection, because they are concentrating on all the surface noise. Buyer beware!
George Santayana, a Spanish philosopher, has been quoted saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The recent influx of populist movements across the globe, and their influence on the political discourse at home and abroad, has reminded some of us of the populist uprising that took place in Germany immediately following World War One. It could be beneficial to look at how our current political environment resembles relevant influences that were dominant in Weimar Germany.
While trying to recover from the effects of losing the war, German leaders attempted to create a modern liberal democracy. In a country that had up to then only known militarism and authoritarian monarchy, this proved to be difficult. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in June of 1919, required Germany to take full responsibility for the loss and damage during the war, forced it to disarm, make territorial concessions, and pay $31.4 billion in reparations (equal to $442 billion in 2016 money). The Weimar Republic confronted obstacles at every turn. The terms of the Treaty were impossible to comply with. Simultaneously, and legislatively, the Russian revolutions of 1917, and the consequent influence of the Communist International, effectively prevented cooperation among the strongest political parties represented in the Reichstag. When the world descended into the "Great Depression" the end was in sight. By the election of 1933 "Weimar" was effectively done.
With "war guilt" hanging over everyone's head, an economy in shambles, unemployment rampant, and the national parliament unable to agree on even the simple things, a populist belief in the power of regular people, and in their right rather than that of a small group of political insiders or wealthy elite, to control their government, took hold. Adolf Hitler, leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) co-opted the national mood, and translated its sentiment into a political platform that contained: opposition to "Versailles," cultural superiority of the Aryan race, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, anti-parliamentarianism, anti-immigrant, Germany first, and economic isolationism. With support of the disenfranchised middle class and an autocratic elite, Hitler parasitized the movement, and shifted it to the ideological right. Six days before the 1933 elections, Nazi storm troopers unleashed a campaign of violence against the Communist Party, trade unionists, the Social Democratic Party, and the center-right Catholic Party. Even so, Hitler only received 43.9% of the vote, and needed to coalesce with the German National People's Party to give the NSDAP a tiny majority in the Reichstag. With their help he was elected Chancellor. Within two weeks he acquired dictatorial powers, and within months all other parties were banned. We know the rest.
So, what do we learn from this? What was once considered an anomaly, has become a trend. Nationalist and populist politicians have begun to assume power in many countries. The end is nowhere in sight. Ant-Semitism, in many places accompanied by Islamophobia, is cropping up all over. The migrant crisis in Europe revived a strong sense of populism. In country after country, anti-immigrant attitudes are blended with a nativist sentiment, focused on effecting cultural purification. Racial profiling, anti-trade, anti-globalization, and economic protectionism arguments feed into discussions similar to those prevalent during the troubled Weimar experiment. Messianic and pathological narcissists have taken center-stage in a growing number of countries. Russia has Vladimir Putin. Hungary elected Viktor Orban and his far-right Fidesz party on the premise of keeping migrants out, and keeping Hungary's national identity pure. In Poland Jaroslaw Kaczynski and his Law and Justice Party are converting its constitution and judicial system to more closely reflect an authoritarian past. The National Front, France's third largest party, is lead by politicians who once proposed to use the Ebola virus to take care of France's "immigration problem." On December 4, Austria will most likely elect Norbert Hofer its first Neo-Nazi President since World War Two.
And the Philippines just elected a new President, Rodrigo Duterte, who has already been accused of having his hand in the death of as many as 4,000 suspected drug offenders, while joking about the Holocaust. In this country our populist contender for the presidency, while subscribing to all the elements feeding into these pathological political positions, has suggested that, if successful, he would jail his opponent. If he loses, he appears disinclined to accept the outcome. Some of his supporters are already on record promising to start an insurrection.
While considering these worrying trends, I could not help but remember a poem by the anti-Nazi theologian Martin Niemoller:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
My mother warned me in the late 1940's that "next time they will come for the Catholics." In 1942 they did come for my grandfather, a butcher, who was accused of feeding the Jews in our community. He was convicted and sent to the gallows in the Nazi re-education camp in Lahde, Germany.
I am far from predicting another holocaust. However, I am suggesting that when pathological narcissists assume power, nothing is off the table.
"What do you have to lose?" is not a rhetorical question.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Thursday, October 6, 2016
WE NEED TO RAISE THE BAR - SO, WHY ARE WE WATCHING A LIMBO CONTEST?
In a New York Times column published March 2 of this year Thomas Friedman observed that: "The three largest forces on the planet - technology, globalization and climate change - are in simultaneous nonlinear acceleration. Climate change is intensifying. Technology is making everything faster and amplifying every voice. And globalization is making the world more interdependent than ever."
To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.
Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.
We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."
Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.
To state that the world today is significantly more complex than it was around the middle of the last century has become a cliché. Complexity, a concept used to characterize something with many parts, interacting with each other in multiple non-linear ways, is something we face every day. Business leaders routinely postulate that "uncertainty + complexity = today's reality." Globalization, defined as a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, driven by international trade and investment, and aided by information technology, forces our leaders to interact with a significantly different set of conditions than those encountered by their predecessors. In an article entitled: "Developing Leaders For A Complex World," Tamara Erickson, a leading expert on the topic, writes: "The complex and ambiguous conditions of this century are unlikely to respond to the old school of leadership. Old norms were honed in a different environment - one in which it was perhaps easier to view one position as right and the other as wrong, easier to predict, to forecast, to control." She and others suggest that today's leaders need to possess maturity, be able to grapple with ambiguity, and have a keen interest in collaboration - leveraging shared efforts and group processes.
Since all of this may sound like common sense, we should consider why some contestants for leadership positions at the pinnacle of our government act as if many of the most significant, and complex, issues confronting us are really simple and easy to fix. "Want to stimulate the economy? Cut taxes. Want to stop violent crime? Pass better gun control. Want to reduce our carbon footprint? Enact a cap and trade system. Want to stop illegal immigration? Build fences and hire border control agents." (Terry Newell, Simple Leadership in a Complex World." The Huffington Post, May 25, 2011). These slogan solutions are very popular in our electoral campaign world, but they are partial at best and dangerous at worst. They reflect a poor and often distorted understanding of the issues, while discouraging a more intelligent conversation. Albert Einstein said it best: "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking where we were when we created them." Integrated problems demand integrated solutions.
We are regularly confronted with the unfortunate and stark contrast between the skills politicians advertise when campaigning, and the expertise required of them if and when they are elected. The excuse they use, however inadequate, is that the voting public won't take the time to understand complex discussions. The argument goes: We live in an age of attention deficit disorder, sound-bites, 30 second commercials, and bumper stickers. Many of us complain about technological change and increased complexity. We yearn for "simpler times." We project anxiety about the present, fear the future, and become nostalgic. The past is safe, because it is completely predictable. Our culture thrives on black-and-white narratives, clearly defined emotions, and easy endings. Rapid change is destabilizing. And politicians feed into this mind-set. They try hard to create zingers that are memorable and easy to grasp. Nevertheless, there is a difference between attaching "simplistic" solutions to complex problems, and using "simplicity" to make these issues more easily understood. To explain policy options in simplistic terms in effect involves a pejorative process which insults our collective intelligence. Simplicity, on the other hand, as Leonardo da Vinci told us "is the ultimate sophistication." And Steve Jobs cautioned that "simple can be harder than complex: you have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple."
Friedman concluded that the accelerations he identified are raising the skill levels and life-long learning requirements for every good job. "They are raising the bar on governance, the speed at which governments need to make decisions, and the need for hybrid solutions. They are also raising the bar on leadership, [and require] leaders who can navigate this complexity." The challenges these accelerations pose require forcing a politics that is much more of a hybrid of left and right. So, while recognizing that much of our electorate may be more comfortable with the old school of leadership and with turning back the clock, the dynamics of our evolving world should require our politicians to demonstrate that they are cognizant of the need to raise the bar, and not insult us with sound-bites and platitudes. If we don't demand this, we allow them to continue to compete in a limbo contest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)