American's Role in the World - Chas. Krauthhammer

America’s Role in the World
BY CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER as recalled by Marc A. Thiesen

Unlike Rome or Britain or other classical empires, Americans do not hunger for territory.  We like it here.  We like our football.  We like our rock ‘n’ roll.  We’ve got the4 Grand Canyon and Graceland.  We’ve got everything.  We are not an imperial power, but commercial republic that by pure accident of history has been designated custodian of the international system. …

We Democratic Realism:  which sees as the engine of history not the will to power but the will to freedom.  America will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity.  Put another way, we will intervene where it counts.

Claims of harassment/discrimination as a political weapon

Accusations abound and I suspect many more will be forthcoming now that we are in election season.   Complaints of sexual harassment and/or discrimination have become the newest weapon in the arsenal of “opposition research.”

I recently read about a female Sheriff being accused of discrimination against a male deputy in 1995.  Yes, you read it correctly 1995.  Why?  Because she is coming up for re-election. 

Why now, over twenty years later has this allegation erupted?  What other reason could there be but a political one?

Did President Trump have a one-night stand with a porn star?  I don’t know and frankly, I don’t care – if it happened it was many years ago.

Lest you misunderstand me:   I detest the exploitation of women and the objectifying of them.  I am a staunch supporter of a safe and neutral working environment – and offer courses to enable people to understand how to make it and keep it safe. 

BUT – to go back more than twenty years ago just to dig up dirt on someone – or even more than ten years ago – seems to me to have other motives than to purely cleanse us from the abusers.

Times have changed.  As more and more women are in power in both the workplace and political arena the old “boys will be boys” attitude will disappear.  Who knows what will actually take its place.

But remember, back in the day – men – powerful men in particular – having affairs was common and socially accepted as long as it was discreet.

My quest for civility

Why can’t we have civil discourse – exchanging our views about ideas and perhaps even learning from each other?  Discussion seems to be a lost art.

I grew up in a family that allowed any and every topic to be discussed at the dinner table – and elsewhere in our home.  There were no taboo topics.  Because of the intellectual freedom provided by our parents, my sister and I were encouraged to study different political points of view and even to visit different houses of worship.

Lucky for me, I acquired a group of friends during my teenage years who also loved discussion of any and all topics.  I called these young men my brothers and loved sitting on the front stoop (ours was the local hangout) talking about philosophy, psychology, politics or religion.  We explored.  We agreed sometimes and disagreed other times.

We NEVER called each other names like stupid or evil or prejudiced.  Nor did we laugh at ideas about which we disagreed.  We argued our point of view, hoping that we were persuasive enough to change a friend’s ideas.

My friends remained my friends.  My family remained my family.  And yes, as I grew older I moved from New York to California and acquired new friends.  Today, my parents are long gone and so my conversations are now with my nieces – both of whom share political points of view vastly different from my own.  That hasn’t stopped me from loving them, or them for loving me.

Our ability to love, to disagree and to share what we believe is a rarity in today’s world that I cherish.  I mourn that it is so rare.

So, I ask – what has changed.  Why is it so difficult for people to disagree civilly?  Why has the college campus – indeed the school room at large – become a “safe space” where only one point of view is allowed and students are “micro-aggressed” against if they offer a contrary point of view?

I think I know some of the reasons – but not all – and certainly I don’[t know, can only speculate about which of these reasons is more important.  I’ll offer you my ideas, and would love to hear from you about yours.

I think:

• ·       Both major political parties are competing to see who has the highest moral ground – and their leaders step on the other point of view to appear bigger.
• ·       There isn’t as much difference in the major parties today so small differences are grossly exaggerated.
• ·       Name calling is a substitute for substantive ideas and argument.
• ·       Safe-spaces and micro-aggression are stifling free speech and making it almost impossible for differing points of view to be explored.
• ·       We are in a sound bite era – the news media reports something, it is copied a zillion times over and whether factual or not, it becomes the prevalent belief.
• ·       Students don’t read anymore – they absorb their limited knowledge from Wikipedia and YouTube.
• ·       Basics like philosophy, comparative religion, and political science are no longer taught – instead all we focus on is STEM.  Thus, there is no foundation for the beliefs that are expounded.
• ·       Emotions not logic wins the day.

What are your thought and how can we change this name calling and ugly polarization? How can we return to people able to disagree, compromise and cooperate?  What must we do  to keep the government rolling smoothly and for us to remain strong and safe?

Balancing Freedom and Control

“If it feels good, do it” seemed to have been the war cry of the EST generation. Never having taken EST, I’m not sure what they actually taught, but have known dozens of graduates of the program, all of whom seemed to believe they had been taught that they were not responsible in any way for the reaction of others to their behavior or words.

There are those who believe that Ayn Rand, who wrote “The Virtue of Selfishness” among her other books, was also an advocate of a similar set of beliefs. Not so. Ms. Rand, whom I knew personally and studied with in New York, believed strongly that we are responsible for our own actions. She talked about an individual’s rights ending at the bridge of the nose (both literally and figuratively) of the other person.

Selfishness, in the view of Ms. Rand who, along with Nathaniel Brandon, founded the Objectivist Philosophy and movement, was enlightened self-interest. That included a long range understanding of the importance of relationships, contracts, integrity, courtesy, a win-win in dealings, and keeping one’s word. Stepping on others was not in one’s best interest.

How much freedom should one have seems to be a debate among Libertarians, Conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Each has its own view of what the government should or should not control. For example, the Conservatives I know believe in economic freedom, but are quite willing to have the government take control of many areas that in my opinion are best left to personal and religious morality. The Democrats on the other hand, espouse freedom of morality, but want to control your pocketbook, telling you where and when to spend your money (taxes). Libertarians argue between anarchy (“If it feels good, do it?”) and limited government – but then where and what are the ends of the limits?

All of this makes me think about leadership and management in the workplace. I’ve written elsewhere about the differences between micro-managing and abrogating responsibility, and as I write this I realize that finding the balance – the parameters – or the box into which people must work – has the same theoretical underpinnings as the values we hold regarding government’s control or lack thereof on us.

As an employee, I want the widest range of freedom possible. Just tell me what you need to have done and let me loose to do it well. As an employer, I want to assure that my employees are being as efficient and effective as possible and am not so quick to give them all the freedom to choose their own way, time and place. What if they pick a path that is more time consuming, or less likely to get the job done well (translation – the way I think it ought to be done), or horror of horrors, what if they make mistakes that cost me a lot of money?

Where is the proper balance?

I think the trickiest part of management is finding this balance for each employee and for each project or task. The variance of need is great. If, for example an employee is new at your firm, you probably will want to have fairly tight controls, at least until the two of you have really discovered a meeting of the minds and trust that your assignments will be carried out properly. If, on the other hand, you are working with someone you have worked with for a long period of time and trust to do the job right, all you have to do is assign it and ask them to let you know if they have any problems, questions or need help in any way.

In other words, the most effective balance is determined on an individual by individual, need by need basis. Hard to do. Probably very time-consuming. The smaller the organization, or the smaller the group you manage, the easier it is to do.

But, what do you do if you are a huge organization and/or if you don’t really know your people since they live and work anywhere and everywhere in the world? Ah, that’s when tight lines get drawn. Policies and procedures get written and sanctions are levied when someone doesn’t color within the lines.

Balancing needs and wants isn’t always as easy as it seems. Balancing freedom and control is even a troublesome task for parents of growing children. How on earth could anyone in government make choices for the millions of people in our country?

Ted Kennedy's death reminds us

To those who knew him, he was a complex, warm, caring and dedicated man. To those of us who remembered the scandals, he got away with murder and was somewhat of a whore-monger.

Listening to the tributes tonight, I am reminded that people are a mixturer of many things. Look, for example of ewhat we knew/know about Michael Jackson = and what some people suspect, in spite of his having been acquitted at trial.

Why are we so quick to believe the worst about people and ignore the good things they've done - until they die, that is.

I also want to remind my readers that political disagreements are merely that. That someone disagrees with us politically doesn't make them stupid or evil.

Evolution or Revolution

An on-going argument among Objectivists is whether change should be allowed to happen by evolution - or whether revolution is not only required, but is the only moral alternative.

I believe in evolution. To be trite, you move mountains one pebble at a time. As I look at the changes in politics, philosophy, and economics, just in my lifetime, I see thousands of examples of incremental changes that over time became a monumental change in the manner in which we think and act.

When younger, existentialism was the belief most prevelant among the college set. Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism - which said reality was knowable and that A is A changed that belief and now her views are commonly accepted.

I raise this point because we are in an election year and not one of the candidates perfectly fits my beliefs. Yet, I am actively and strongly supporting one - one who comes the closest - even though he is not perfect.

Perhaps we did need revolutions from time to time - in the founding of our country, during the civil war, and even the civil rights movement - but this strategy should be employed when all attempts at persuasion and small changes growing into big ones have failed.

What are your views?