One of the spins from the Democrats, in response to McCain's historic decision to name Sarah Palin to the ticket, is that Palin's brief tenure as governor of Alaska invalidates McCain's argument that Obama is not ready to lead. This is a double-edged sword argument that the McCain campaign welcomes. The fact that the Democratic Party has, once again, chosen career lawyer-politicians for their ticket is not change: it's more of the same.
The Selection of Biden
Barack Obama, on his very first executive decision, in a change decision, decides to name a 6-term liberal Democrat to the ticket, a career Washington politician whom had been in the Senate for years while McCain was still serving in the Navy. By any objective standpoint, this pick was defensive in nature, reflecting Obama's inexperience with military and foreign affairs. But let's look at this pick a little closer: Barack Obama has repeatedly crowed about the fact he gave a 2002 speech while a state senator in the Illinois legislature, without the benefit of national intelligence briefings, in which he opposed the liberation of Iraq. He considered his speech, delivered with no public accountability for his decision, to be a fundamental validation of his judgment. (Barack Obama has further attempted to claim his stand as a "profile in courage" which could have wrecked his changes at the Senate. On the contrary: over 20 Senate Democrats voted against giving Bush authorization, and Howard Dean seemed poised to grab the 2004 Democratic nomination as the anti-Iraq candidate until his campaign imploded.) But let's for the sake of argument grant Obama his judgment. Who does he pick? Given Obama's judgment and looking for a running mate with more military/foreign policy experience, Obama picks Biden--whom didn't share Obama's judgment regarding the Iraq liberation.
Now I'm not in charge of briefing Sarah Palin for her upcoming debate with Joe Biden, but I would relish the opportunity to point out that Democrats like Joe Biden, arguing our loss in international standing because of our more limited alliance in the liberation and stabilization of Iraq, actually opposed a much larger coalition of nations, including Arab countries, which participated in the first Gulf War following Hussein's conquest of Kuwait and his subsequent threats to Saudi Arabia. Taking a cue from Kerry's infamous nuanced defense of Iraq funding in the 2004 campaign, Joe Biden was in favor of a surge before he opposed the surge. And Joe Biden prominently proposed partitioning Iraq among the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, which has been widely discredited since then, including by the Iraqis themselves. The fact is that the change in Iraq has resulted primarily by the surge, i.e., achieving a critical mass of American troops with the right anti-insurgency policies in place, to stabilize Iraq. And Obama and Biden both lacked the judgment that made change in Iraq possible, change that is now making possible American withdrawal with honor.
The salient question is--if Obama and Biden lacked the judgment to make the right call on how to stabilize Iraq, how does America expect them to have the judgment to make the right call on critical domestic policies?
But more on the Biden selection: Why did Obama pick someone with roughly the same far-left liberal voting record he has, e.g., a centrist? If he wanted a truly diverse ticket, he could have picked Bill Richardson (my pick for him in an earlier post), a Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Jane Harman or Senator Evan Bayh, whom had a reputation as a centrist as an Indiana governor.
An Example of Being a Change Agent
I know, from my own history as a change agent as a professor and as a computer consultant, what it's like being a true change agent and having to deal with corruption and cronyism: I have arrows in my back to prove it.
This post is not meant to be autobiographical, but a single example will do. At the time, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee had a step to achieve PhD supporting faculty status, which I earned through my research record. (The rules were changed after I qualified.) This basically allowed me to sit on comprehensive qualifying exam processes, dissertation committees, and the like.
There was a CPA whom decided to pursue a PhD in my MIS area, mostly because, as he said to me, UWM didn't offer an accounting major. He was popular with all 4 senior MIS professors but had failed the first of 2 qualification attempts allowed when I entered the picture. The four professors were compromised of two pairs typically at odds with each other. One of these pairs consisted of the informal head of MIS (we had an undepartmentalized School of Business) and his close colleague whom also happened to chair the PhD Program Committee.
All of the professors, including myself, had recommended that the CPA not take his final attempt the next semester (the earliest time possible), but he refused. He came to my office, trying to sniff out clues as to what question I might be submitting for the exam; he tried to brownnose me by telling me he had read all my articles in preparation. In any event, he took the exam, and once again he failed, by any objective standard, despite the fact that the first pair of professors had tried to game the rules in the student's favor. (We had a grading rule which required dropping the highest and lowest scores and averaging the others.) That is, for example, one of the professors would give the student a perfect score for a question the student had bombed, knowing that score would be dropped.
I then watched in disbelief as the four professors disputed how to handle the student's failure. The informal lead said (I'm loosely paraphrasing), "You two are going to have to tell him because I'm not going to do it. I already have a dissertation project lined up for him." The other pair liked the CPA and wavered in the face of the lead's challenge. I remember later asking one of the professors in question what they would have done, say, if the CPA had my blunt, direct personality, and without hesitation, the gentleman replied, "Oh, he would have been gone."
Taking the initiative, the lead motioned to suspend the failure decision, against my objection, and asked his PhD Program chair colleague to convene a committee meeting to revise the rules. The committee convened and quickly modified the process to allow a conditional pass at the discretion of the exam committee, involving the specification of additional work to be completed before approving full pass status. Our exam committee then reconvened and then immediately issued a conditional pass for the student, over my objections.
In my judgment, that type of cronyism constitutes a violation of professional ethics; the CPA knew the risks of flunking the exam a second time, had been advised by all the professors he was not ready to take the exam, but took it anyway and had flunked the exam, not by a point or two, and four professors conspired to change the rules after the game was played was grossly unjust and unfair to any student whom had played by the same rules.
There had been an earlier case with the same lead professor whom had refused one of his PhD students, whom I had befriended, to let me read his dissertation proposal, which was due to be defended shortly. The rules required a freezing of the proposal, and a copy of the proposal could be checked out by any of the faculty. The secrecy of the process had raised an obvious red flag. The reason of the secrecy became readily apparent; the dissertation chair was trying to negotiate with one of the companies he consulted with in the Wisconsin area to do a field study involving company employees. The backup plan was to use student subjects. The study didn't really flesh out how the hypotheses would operationalized, sample sizes, and statistical tests, etc. (under either scenario). I basically advised the student to withdraw his proposal.
The motivation for the PhD student in question to defend his proposal prematurely is that he wanted to enter the academic job market for the next year, and he realized he would not be considered seriously without ABD ("all but dissertation") status, i.e., following a successful proposal defense.
A few days later I had accepted a ride from the CPA student discussed above to go to a dog-and-pony show at one of the lead professor's consulting clients. And somehow I got separated from the CPA student, my ride, by the end of the visit, and found myself alone with the senior professor to give me a ride back to my apartment. As we neared my apartment building, the lead professor spoke, "I heard what you said concerning David's proposal, and I told him he needs to address your feedback. But I want you to understand one thing: You have no vote in your tenure process."
This threat was totally unexpected. But the lead professor didn't stop simply with the threat. He recruited in the interim before the defense a reputable heavyweight in the organizational behavior area, and that faculty member had one mission for the proposal defense: to personally take me out if I opened my mouth.
My motive had never been to sabotage the lead professor or the PhD student. When I was on the market in 1985-1986, I actually fell in love with a small college in northern Ohio which had made me an offer. The big stumbling point was that they only offered one graduate course in MIS, and this course was "owned" by a prominent local textbook author. After a long period, UWM finally made the offer. (Ironically, the person who ended up landing my Ohio job won early tenure, while my academic career was all but over. "Woulda, coulda, shoulda") I loved teaching and research, and I thought UWM was a better career move. The end result regarding the proposal defense was I decided that I had already done my due diligence, and it looked as if I was becoming the issue instead of the student's research. The student defended his proposal. The emperor wore no clothes. The co-conspirators who signed the proposal are accountable for their actions.
I somehow realized, at the point of that tenure threat, my first semester at UWM, that I would never win tenure there. But I think the saddest part was the fact that none of the PhD students asked me to be on their committees.
In some cases, I found support with the senior faculty, when we agree that the 9-hour undergraduate MIS major requirement was uncompetitive, and we doubled the hours. We still had a number of outraged students worried about their grandfathered MIS major program rights. On the other hand, there was the time I tried to push for industry experience to be listed among factors to be considered for entry to the MIS PhD program, which was immediately dismissed.
The point is not that politics also exists in academia and private industry. (I could list dozens of examples as a DBA where I ran into big political problems trying to get things done, ranging from resistance to change to professional jealousy, even bosses worrying I was a threat to their jobs.) It's about knowing one's place, to be seen and not heard (especially as a junior faculty member or legislator), biding one's time until you get to a secure position to change things, etc.
A final example from academia: When I was at UTEP, I soon discovered I had graduating MIS majors in my class whom could not write a computer program from scratch on their own. My colleagues had passed them along with pseudocode examples (i.e., making computer programs merely a typing exercise with some minor tweaks). And I said essentially, "The buck stops here." I was unpopular with students, whom felt I was applying different standards than other professors at their expense. Other people tried to warn me if all they wanted was a worthless piece of paper, why should I fight it? After all, once they graduate, their inability to find or hold a decent job doesn't really impact my own performance evaluation. To me, that didn't matter. I had a moral obligation to do everything in my power as a teacher to do the right thing. I put my students first, even if I got the lousiest evaluations in the history of the college.
Some teachers get a lot of kudos for their efforts. Others, like me, get cheap shots. When I taught at more teaching-oriented places like Illinois State, I would hear comments like, "I could have get published, too, except that people who research cut corners at the expense of their students, and I put my students first." And I would simply smile and think to myself, "You know, if you had no social life and worked 80 or more hours a week, you could have time for both teaching and research." You just have to develop a thick skin. Some students noticed, like the one whom said, "You know, this is the first course I've ever taken here where somebody brought up the topic of object-oriented programming."
Before I left UWM, Frank, a manager at one of the lead faculty member's clients and a new PhD student, called me and told me he was sorry to see my leaving UWM because he had heard great things about my graduate systems analysis course and had been looking forward to taking my class. After the call, I thought to myself, that was the first time I heard anything positive about all the work I put into that class--and Frank never knew my failed attempt to change the MIS PhD program so people like him would have a better chance. You don't do these things for external validation.
Barack Obama vs John McCain/Sarah Palin as Change Agents
The concept of a change agent goes beyond something like getting a large increase in funding for a local program. That can reflect something as simple as political standing or quid pro quo.
Barack Obama will never understand. I'm not saying there was a film crew every time he showed up at a community gathering, and I honor him for doing things like that, just like millions of other people whom do these things without any intent of a political career or for a blurb in the local media.
John McCain knows. He had been targeted for being disloyal to a Republican President for criticizing troop staffing levels in Iraq and recommending the termination of the Secretary of Defense. He then faced open revolt from media conservatives in the failed attempts to reform immigration, while bearing the political costs as the highest profile legislator standing for the surge, especially as casualties initially increased. He said as his last chance for the Republican nomination seemed to melt away that he was willing to accept that price in order to do the right thing for America.
Sarah Palin knows. Named as ethics commissioner for the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Sarah resigned after discovering her whisteblowing was being ignored, and then exposed the Republican state party chairman and Attorney General, forcing their resignations. Sarah subsequently unseated the incumbent Republican governor, whom had appointed her to the commission, and went on to defeat a former Democratic governor whom outspent her.
What do we know about Barack Obama? Obama was elected state senator from Chicago, notorious for its ruthless politics. In 1996, a Democratic state senator decided to attempt election to a US Congressional seat. opening the way to an Obama candidacy. When the incumbent had second thoughts and attempted to refile for her seat, Obama refused to step aside and in fact hired lawyers to successfully throw out her refiling petition--and then similarly challenged the remaining candidates in the primary for a safe Democratic seat, running unopposed. I'm not arguing there weren't legitimate petition issues, but it's fairly difficult to believe that disqualifying an incumbent officeholder from a primary on a legal technicality reflects sportsmanship.
Then there was the 2004 Senate race where Barack Obama was struggling behind frontrunner Blair Hull, whom had latched onto the idea of importing prescription drugs from Canada, when about a month before the primary, when a tabloid-like story broke out based on domestic violence allegations by Hull's ex-wife.
On the Republican side, Jack Ryan, a Kennedy-like candidate with a story, an investment banker whom gave up his wealthy position to teach at an inner-city Catholic school, had coasted to a victory. Obama's backers had fed the local media reports on Ryan's divorce from his Hollywood actress ex-wife Jeri. A Chicago newspaper subsequently sued to get Ryan's divorce papers unsealed, despite opposition by both Ryan and Jeri. (Reportedly Ryan had wanted an unwilling Jeri to have sex with him in certain sex clubs.) Ryan subsequently withdrew, and the GOP, unable to field a substitute local candidate, imported an out-of-state candidate Alan Keyes, whom was never a serious challenger.
A side note goes to Rod Blagojevich, the unpopular Democratic second-term Illinois Governor whom once had Presidential aspirations of his own. There are several issues being considered, including alleged links of campaign donations with no-bid contracts and/or political appointments and Blagojevich's refusal to live in the Springfield governors mansion, instead billing the taxpayer for an expensive daily commute from Chicago. In particular, note that Blagojevich has continued to add to state spending, despite wide concerns about state pension funding, while increasing tax burdens. (Contrast this scenario with Sarah Palin's auctioning off the state plane on eBay and dismissing the housecleaning staff.)
I'm not suggesting a link between Obama and Blagojevich, but they do share a common fundraiser whom recently was convicted on 16 counts of influence peddling: Tony Rezko. The point is more that Barack Obama is willing to mix it up in tough Chicago politics, do whatever it takes to win and associates with the likes of Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, and William Ayers most genuine reformists would avoid. Obama does not transform Chicago politics any more than Obama worked to defuse a Senate crisis over judicial nominees (i.e., he was not part of the Gang of 14, headed by McCain). In fact, Obama intended to participate a filibuster of Judge Alito and also voted against Chief Justice Roberts, despite the fact that both judges were highly qualified; before the infamous Bork nomination, judicial nominations usually were not decided on party line votes.
Barack Obama has not been a change agent. You cannot claim to be a change agent if you are voting the same way over 90% as your fellow Democrats. In contrast, John McCain has worked with multiple Democrats (Feingold, Kennedy, Lieberman, and others) on several key reforms. Sarah Palin has named bipartisan boards.
Leadership/Management Style
After rehabilitation for his POW injuries, McCain was given his first command, the Navy's largest air squadron in Jacksonville, including over 750 officers and enlisted personnel. About a third of the A-7 light attack planes were out of service, due to parts shortages and other maintenance problems which veteran lieutenants believed to be irreducible. McCain took it as a challenge to get all of the A-7's in operation, did a lot of listening to the ranks, rotated out people whom weren't with the program, promoted people from the ranks into key positions that could make things happen, scavenged parts, and inspired the ranks to take up the challenge versus simply clocking in their 8 hours. Not only did McCain eventually get the entire fleet flying, the squadron won its first Meritorious Unit Commendation, set a safety record and qualified its first female pilot. Like all true change agents, McCain found a way to make things happen.
Now, of course, running a country is qualitatively different than running a fighter squadron. But John McCain's quick read and analysis, his ability to question strategy and staffing decisions in Iraq in 2003, and the like, as well as his rapid analysis and condemnation of the recent Russian incursion into Georgia, which preceded President Bush's and Obama's eventual recognition of the same, simply shows that he is a more credible Commander in Chief than Bush or Obama.
Similarly, Sarah Palin has been able to get things done since winning election on a clean government platform. She has instituted a tax increase on balking energy companies, has an agreement to set up a natural gas pipeline which will connect to Canadian pipelines for shipment to the lower 48, has cut property taxes and instituted a $1000-plus energy rebate for Alaskan residents. She has done a lot to cut spending, e.g., on administration expenses.
When we talk about being "not ready to lead", we are discussing more than just familiarity with national defense, foreign policy and economic issues. Obama is someone prone to gaffes (e.g., his irresponsible statement implying unilateral action in Pakistan without their consent, his waffling on Israeli-Palestinian issues, US-Canada trade, his confusing flip-flops on things like gun rights, the death penalty, etc.), someone whom can deliver a fine speech if well-prepared, but often seems unable to think on his feet, whether it was a Democratic primary debate, the Saddleback Civic Forum, or even a 7-year-old girl asking him why he wants to be President.
Real leaders don't go around talking in terms of "we'll get everybody together and figure something out"; they don't engage in analysis-paralysis. They size up a situation, know how to set priorities, and if they don't have the right personnel or materials to achieve their mission, they make the necessary adjustments. If they face a roadblock, they do what it takes to meet it head on or to work around it. They have a commitment that goes beyond, say, a typical 8-hour workday.
Even something like energy supplies come into play here. For example, years ago liberals put off things like offshore or ANWR drilling based on allegations of time to market. Now as we face what many refer to as a Peak Oil phenomenon, and boutique solutions, long advanced by liberals, among to maybe 5% of energy consumption after decades; worse, the 13 million barrels or so a day we need to import are increasingly eyed by competing economies which are willing to bid for it. Say liberals are right and it takes 9 years to go to market. Is this problem going to be gone 9 years from now--or is it likely to be even worse? So, you have parrot Democrats repeating the useless phrase "you can't drill your way out of this". Let's put it this way: If somehow $4/gallon gas can't get us to reduce, say, the two-thirds of our energy being imported, and similarly if we can't ramp up boutique solutions fast enough, we'll need oil. We cannot afford to wait another 5 or 9 years before we start drilling. That's why we need to drill now, regardless of whether liberals think it will have an immediate effect on prices. Obama has been completely disingenuous on this point. Time is money--the later we start, the worse off the average American customer is going to be; the problem isn't going to disappear--it'll get worse, not better. This is the kind of leadership America needs--not some memorized lines from campaign propaganda and a motivational speech with no substance.
