Let’s Open Our Eyes

Patrick Henry, who most famously cried, “Give me Liberty or give me death!”, also said: “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts.”

Illusions are so comforting. As long as we can cling to them, we don’t have to face the unpleasant world—or ourselves. Have you, like me, ever told yourself that a snack is OK because you can cut back on calories later? For some reason, later never seems to arrive and the waist keeps getting bigger.

The more successful you have been, and the more power you have, the easier it is to fall into the trap of doing the easy thing now because you can always fix it in the future. The fly diving for the sweet nectar of the Venus Fly Trap hasn’t the slightest doubt that he will be able to fly away after the feast. Yet, the outcome is always the same.

Politicians are the Grand Masters of living a life of illusion. Regardless of political party, they are men and women who have devoted their lives to creating an illusion about themselves in order to win elections. And, since the payoff in politics is always short term, the most compelling thing for them to do is ignore the future. Grab the instant prize; someone else will fix it down the line.

For many decades, some of the most intelligent and articulate people in the country have promoted the concept that the government is a huge candy bowl. Washington is the source of never-ending free goodies that don’t have to be paid for. And, the country has bought into it.

There is only one problem with this. The United States is bankrupt. The government cannot afford to keep the promises it has made to the American people. This is beyond dispute among those who have taken a serious look at our country’s financial situation. Yet, our elected leaders continue to shut their eyes to this painful truth.

Before Libya pushed financial news off the front pages, much was being made about the dramatic showdowns between the Republicans and Democrats in Congress. The former wanted to cut $61 billion from this year’s budget. This amount represents 1.6% of the total spending projected for the year, and only 3.7% of the projected budget deficit. The median (half above and half below) household income in the U.S. is $46, 326. A spending cut of this magnitude would be about $740 for the year for a family. Most of us have done more than that, but the mere prospect makes swooning politicians reach for the smelling salts.

The Democrats are using every weapon in their formidable arsenal to resist those cuts by portraying them as extreme and irresponsible.

Neither side is serious. The debt is rising by about $5 billion a day, or about $3.5 million a minute. In that context, the $61 billion that the Republicans have set as a goal represents only about 12 days of borrowing. If the Republicans succeed, the national debt by the end of September will approach $16 trillion. If the Democrats succeed in avoiding any further cuts, the national debt by the end of September will approach $16 trillion. The difference in their positions, in relation to the total debt, is about 3/10,000,000.

Today, the U.S. has some $14.2 trillion in public debt. (This does not include the more than $100 trillion in future year financial obligations it has assumed.) President Obama’s proposed budget projected that the public debt will rise to some $19 trillion by 2021. Just a month after making that projection, the independent Government Accountability Office estimated that the debt would be $2.7 trillion greater than forecast by President Obama; or, almost $22 trillion. (Historically, every single five and ten year forecast of the growing debt has been low. The Congress always spends more money than expected. I believe that, if we continue on our current path, the debt will be much more than $22 trillion.)

But, let’s assume that the forecast is right this time and the debt will be only $22 trillion in ten years. The interest payment, at the current weighted average rate, would be about $420 billion in 2021. This would be only slightly less than the amount projected to be spent on all non-defense discretionary spending.

Rates are almost certain to rise from today’s historic lows. The average interest rate on public debt over the past 30 years has been almost four times greater than it is today. If rates rose to that 30 year average, we would pay almost $1.6 trillion just for interest on the debt in 2021. That is equal to the total amount projected to be spent on all discretionary spending in 2021, to include defense and security.

In short, over the next ten years, we could shut down every single cabinet agency (including defense), close every single government program except entitlements, fire more than 4 million civilian and military personnel, and still save only enough to pay interest on the debt.

But, interest rates are likely to be much higher than in the past. Inflation is beginning to come back. Oil and food prices are rising dramatically, and like Ole Man River, the Fed just keeps rolling (printing money) along. If inflation drives interest rates to the levels seen in the late 1970’s, then the amount needed to service the public debt will approach the total projected tax receipts.

Under this plausible scenario, we could eliminate all government activities across the board, including entitlements, and still collect only enough taxes to pay interest on the debt.

The answer isn’t to raise taxes. We can’t raise them enough without destroying the country. We can’t print more money without igniting hyperinflation. The only answer that works is to cut spending. We must stop increasing the debt. That means no more budget deficits. Starting now. Not sometime in the future.

I don’t know what the future will bring. But, I do know that our country cannot survive with the federal debt burden that we already have. Continuing to increase it merely drives more nails into the national coffin.

The Obama Administration ignores this and projects deficits and increasing debt as far as the eye can see. The Democrats cling to their illusions. The Republicans, on the other hand, talk about responsible change but, so far, have not done anything serious about it.

This is not unique to America. Throughout history, whenever a country has faced an overwhelming debt burden, the politicians have acted as if they are somehow exempt from the consequences of their actions. They continued to tax, borrow, and spend their way into a financial collapse of their country.

There is an old story about the sinking of the Titanic. When the ship hit the iceberg some chunks of ice fell onto the ship’s deck. Some of the wealthy party goers, confident that no harm could ever come to them, reportedly broke off bits of the ice and used it in their drinks. They partied while the ship sank. I don’t know if that is a true story. But, if it is, the tuxedoed gentlemen and their ladies must have been politicians.

It may be good political theater to appear to be fighting. And, the tinkle of a bit of iceberg in one’s whiskey might be charming, but the ship is sinking and those we elect to represent us don’t act as if it is a real problem.

Unless You Know Where You Are Going, You Can’t Get There.

In 1992, Vice Admiral James Stockdale was Ross Perot’s running mate for President. In the Vice-Presidential debate he began his comments by saying: “Who am I? Why am I here?” He was greeted with laughter and near universal scorn in the media. They opined that anyone so naïve as to ask these questions clearly wasn’t qualified to be Vice President. A professional politician would never expose himself to such a question.

As usual, it was the media that was clueless. Stockdale was not a politician. He was one of the most highly decorated naval officers in history. As the senior POW in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, he survived seven years of torture and near starvation. In the process, he set an example of character, integrity, and leadership that gave hundreds of other POW’s the strength to survive. He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his courage in captivity.

Even more important than a medal, however, was the impact he had on those who followed his example in prison. They took those lessons home with them and, as changed men, had an impact on others. No one will ever know how many thousands of people today are stronger because of the character of one man whose body was broken, but whose spirit was untouched.

Stockdale was able to do this because he had asked himself the questions: “Who am I? Why am I here?”

Many of us are as clueless as the media’s understanding of Stockdale.  Business text books say we should have a mission statement. Most organizations ignore the need for it. Many executives dismiss it as a meaningless bureaucratic exercise. As El Bandito said in the “Treasure of Sierra Madre” when he claimed to be a policeman, “We don’t need no stinking badges!”

Other organizations go through the motions and produce a mission statement that is so general that it doesn’t say anything and that everyone ignores. They merely prove that the cynics are right. They waste the organization’s time and delude themselves.

No one would think of getting into a car and start driving without knowing where they are or where they are going. Yet, that is the way they run their organizations.

Leadership is not possible unless you can bring people together to work for a common purpose. An effective mission statement that is actually used within the organization is one of the single most important tools on building an understanding of who are we and why are we here. It builds a common sense of purpose. It establishes a common standard of behavior that allows the organization to evaluate its effectiveness.

Without a common sense of purpose, an organization can never excel. Without it, an executive becomes a herder of cats and not a leader of a team.

Below is the mission statement I use for my own organization (a consulting firm). Like everything, it could be improved, and we are always seeking to do so. It has become an important communications and team building tool. I urge you to look at what you are doing in your own organization. If you haven’t invested the effort to answer Stockdale’s questions, how can you ever reach your full potential?

Here’s my mission statement:

The Austin Group exists to support its clients. Our mission is to take a genuine interest in our clients, understand their objectives, and meet or exceed their expectations. We dedicate ourselves to these values: 

• For our clients, we will work hard, provide superior services on a timely, effective, and efficient basis, and maintain the highest standards of professional integrity.
•  For our office, we will foster an enjoyable working environment, based on open
  communication and mutual respect, and will encourage initiative, innovation, teamwork, and loyalty.

Only in Washington

Politicians speak English. Sort of. They use the same words we do, but give different meanings to them. For example, increasing spending by less than the amount forecast is called a budget cut. You and I, seeing that the amount of spending has increased, would call it a spending increase. How silly of us not to recognize that the increase is really a decrease and a bold act of political leadership.


In the 2012 budget released this week, President Obama proposes to freeze federal non-defense discretionary spending for five years. He claims that this will “save” $400 billion in spending. But, remember, this is Washington Politico-Speak. Actual spending will not be reduced in spite of the claims. It will remain at unprecedented levels. This category of the budget has increased by almost 50 percent in the two years the Obama Administration has been in power.

This is like a man who begins to eat two desserts after every meal. His doctor tells him that the weight gain is unhealthy and that drastic action is needed to avoid catastrophic problems. The man then announces that he will freeze his eating habits at two desserts per meal and not increase to three deserts. He then calls this a bold diet and claims that the extra weight that the third dessert would have caused is really a weight loss.

Only in Washington . . .

The media is now consumed with the looming fights over entitlement spending. Bringing entitlements under control is essential to long term financial health for our country. The debates on how to do this will take time as a national consensus emerges. But, significant actions to reduce the deficit and resulting debt can be taken in the meantime.

Almost all of the record deficits of the last two years has come from the huge increase in discretionary spending, not entitlements. For more than two centuries we grew and prospered without our government eating two desserts after every meal. The current level of spending is an aberration, not the norm.

Huge savings, simply by returning to the levels of discretionary spending that existed just two years ago, are available if we use American English to address the problem, and not Washington English.

Chrysler Bailout *

Automaker Chrysler is facing bankruptcy. Its executives come to Washington to ask for a government bailout. The United States economy is in recession. Sound familiar?

But the year was 1979. Lee Iaccoca was Chrysler’s CEO. And the amount granted in the form of guaranteed loans was a mere $1.5 billion. “They spend that much on paperclips for bailouts nowadays,” quipped Michael A. Driggs, who was involved in the first Chrysler bailout. He spoke at a Legal Affairs Committee luncheon on April 22.

Mr. Driggs, an examiner at the Office of Management and Budget at the time, was tapped to head the Chrysler bailout. As executive director of the Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Board at the Department of the Treasury, he reported to three superiors: the Treasury secretary, the Federal Reserve chairman, and the comptroller general. There was no task force, as is the case today.

Chrysler, he said, asked for government loans. But the board agreed only to guarantee company bonds. The bonds were redeemed by Chrysler in 1982. Moreover, the government made a return of $350 million from the sale of warrants it received in return for the guarantees.

Unlike today, when the chairman of troubled General Motors was compelled to resign, the government did not fire Chrysler’s officers or impose its view on what products the company should make. Again, in contrast to today, the government did not show favoritism toward any of the stakeholders in Chrysler. Instead it forced the corporation to come up with its own plans for survival. “Chrysler would come in with a plan. And we’d say, ‘Not conservative enough. Try again.’” Once, he disclosed, they even threatened to force the company into bankruptcy if Iaccoca did not agree to a more realistic plan.

Chrysler continued to be troubled. In 1998 it merged with Daimler, a stormy relationship that ended a decade later. Today it is faced with a merger with Fiat.

Mr. Driggs lamented the fact that the government has apparently not learned from the first Chrysler bailout. The Carter administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress had already had experience bailing out companies like Penn Central and Lockheed. “They knew the seductive addiction of federal subsidies without conditions – or linked to political considerations rather than economic realities. This pool of experience has been lost to our government, perhaps because as a country we do not remember our history well.”

But the speaker speculated that today the government has invested so much money in Chrysler ($4 billion in government loans granted last December and $6 billion more requested) that it can’t readily pull out and follow the formula he and his board established 30 years ago.

*The above is an article that appears in the monthly newsletter of The Cosmos Club, Washington, DC, describing a speech I gave at the club. (Michael Driggs)

Act 1: Bush Sets the Stage for Obama

On December 19, President Bush offered GM and Chrysler $17.4 billion in loans, $8 billion of which could be issued as early as December 29. It won’t be enough. These companies must not only weather the downturn in the auto market, they must significantly restructure in order to be competitive in the U.S.

Time is the variable. No one can predict with certainly just how long it will take the auto market to recover. Until the market returns, all auto manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers—not just the Detroit 3—will struggle. It will also take time to restructure. Time to negotiate new arrangements with lenders, suppliers, and labor. Time to change the product mix. Time to streamline the manufacturing process. And, time to for all these changes to take effect.

For 30 years, the U.S. manufacturers have been on a steady downward spiral in the U.S. market. Since the oil shock of 1979, they have been losing market share and per unit profit margin to foreign car makers. They have tried to adjust. To cite just one example, their workforce has declined from 1.1 million employees in 1979 to about 250,000 today. But, they have been chasing a moving target. Every improvement in quality, product offering, and manufacturing efficiency has been matched, or exceeded, by the foreign manufacturers (even in their U.S. operations).

They had plans to continue to adjust slowly over the next several years to ease the transition impacts on the companies. These were the basis of the proposals they made to Congress a few weeks ago. Although it was not clear that what they had planned to do over many years would have been enough to close the gap with their competitors, the changes they contemplated would have been smoothly implemented.

The combined fuel and finance shocks this year, however, created the need for the auto companies to implement these plans—and more—in months rather than years. And that is the heart of the question facing the U.S. government. Will we use our fiscal power to accelerate change which must occur? Or, will we use it to cushion private companies from rapid change?

President Bush has come down on the side of the former; use federal loans to accelerate needed change. He has created a structure, however, that forces President Obama to address the same set of questions just weeks after he takes office.

The Detroit 3 can make money overseas and in the sale of large cars and trucks in the U.S. They cannot make money on the sale of small cars in the U.S.; precisely the portion of the market that many see as the future of the industry.

Buying a small car represents trading off the comfort, convenience, and safety of a large car with the fuel economy of a small car. When gas prices rise, demand shifts toward smaller vehicles, only to shift back when prices fall again. Given historic fuel prices, the American consumer is not willing to pay a premium for fuel efficiency. They will do so in Europe. There, gas prices have not been below $4/gallon since 1996. (They rose as high as $10/gallon this past summer.)

Yet, the Detroit manufacturers must compete in the market in which they live, not the market they would prefer. To be competitive with those who successfully meet the demands of the U.S. market they must take several steps. Their product offerings must be streamlined to match consumer demand, with redundant and costly fringe products eliminated. The products must offer features and amenities, and be of a quality, that is fully competitive with other available vehicles. And, just as importantly, they must be built at a cost that allows them to be sold at a profit.

Detroit must accelerate the changes that it has begun to achieve a complete makeover of the way it does business in the U.S.

The President’s loan proposal is the first step in doing this. It uses the financial crisis, and the power of federal financing, to require GM and Chrysler to produce a plan by February 17th that shows how they will achieve economic viability by achieving a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the U.S. while, at the same time, complying with all federal fuel economy standards. It outlines specific and dramatic concessions from lenders, management, and employees that must be made as a condition to the loans.

The offer, however, only gives the two companies half of what they have said they need to survive through the first quarter of next year. (They had asked for $34 billion.) And, it is silent on what will happen after March 31st when the Executive Branch will report to Congress on the status of the restructuring effort. It is also silent on the implications for Ford. Ford has not asked for assistance, and would not be required to comply with the dramatic changes being asked of GM and Chrysler. But, if those two make significant improvements in their cost structure, Ford will become less competitive if it does not match them.

By next March, we will have a new President. We will also know more about the economic state of the country and how sincere the auto companies and their stakeholders have been in making the changes they need in order to survive. Even if they have moved in good faith to expeditiously change the way in which they do business, it is almost certain that they will need substantially more financial assistance from the federal government.

The question facing President Obama will be: is the additional aid to promote increased change in the auto industry, or is it to avoid change and preserve the status quo? What will Act II reveal?

“Freedom’s Just Another Word”

The above is lifted out of context from an old Janis Joplin song. But it does reflect, I think, the view of all too many among us. For them, freedom is just something that exists. It has always been, and always will be, ours by right. There is no need to fight for it and it is certainly not important enough to justify any sacrifice on our part to extend its benefits to others.

This is not new view. Our country has always had many who can justify endangering future security for peace and comfort today. Although they would never use these words, their actions proclaim: Yes, our children may suffer, but that is a problem for the future to deal with. Why should we make any sacrifice now? Or, as long as we can enjoy the benefits of freedom, why should we bear any burden to share this blessing with others?

Two centuries ago this view had its advocates who felt just as strongly then as their counterparts do today. On the surface, they had reason to despair. George Washington had been driven from New York and, as 1777 drew to a close, the British army was threatening Philadelphia. The American cause had achieved only a string of mistakes and defeats for all of its efforts.

That is when Thomas Paine began a series of pamphlets that later came to be called “The Crisis”. The first was published on December 23, 1777. George Washington was so impressed by Paine’s analysis of the fight for freedom, that he had the entire article read to inspire his troops just before they boarded boats to cross the icy Delaware River. The Christmas Eve attack on the Hessian soldiers in Trenton was Washington’s boldest move during the war, and raised hope throughout the nation that the cause of freedom was not lost.

Below, I quote excerpts from The Crisis. You will find some of the phrases familiar. I think that much would be gained if our country read and thought upon these words today. They are as meaningful now as they were 229 years ago.

Please see “The Crisis” for the full text.

“THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. . .

“. . . a noted one [Tory], who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. . .”

Vietnam Redux

“The American response during the enemy offensive was timely, forceful and decisive. This staunch resolve of the U.S. to stand behind its ally stunned the enemy.” LTG Ngo Quanq Truong, Army of the Republic of Vietnam, 1972

“It is a fact that in the United States all the press, the media and intellectuals have a vested interest in our defeat.” Henry Kissinger, U.S. Secretary of State, 1974

“. . . perhaps the major lesson of the Vietnam war is: do not rely on the United States as an ally.” Sir Robert Thompson, one of Britain’s leading experts on counterinsurgency, 1974.

Yesterday (October 18), George Stephanopoulos, in an interview with President Bush, asked if the current increase in violence in Iraq is comparable to the Tet Offensive in Vietnam. His question deserves an answer.

In the minds of many liberals, invoking Tet is the ultimate trump card to prove that the U.S. cannot, perhaps should not, win any war in the third world. In this, they are right that the lessons of Vietnam should be applied to Iraq. But, they are totally wrong in both fact and interpretation of what those lessons are.

The quotes above summarize the path of the Vietnam War and, regrettably, the path that we seem to be taking in Iraq.

In February 1968, North Vietnam violated the lunar New Year cease fire agreement and launched a massive attack throughout South Vietnam. Their goal was to spark a local uprising to overthrow the South Vietnamese government. In spite of some brief territorial gains, most notably in Saigon and Hue, the attack was a total failure. The local uprising in support of the North did not occur, the communist infrastructure established in the South was eliminated, and at the end of the battles, the casualties suffered by the North Vietnamese were more than 100 percent of the original attacking forces.

More importantly, Tet was such a major setback to North Vietnam’s ability to wage war in the South, that it would take another four years before the North could restore the capability to do so. By the end of 1971, 95 percent of the population of the South supported their government, agricultural production was at historically high levels, the communists were confined to small enclaves in the jungle, and one could travel almost anywhere in South Vietnam in security. I know. I was there.

By most accepted definitions, the war had been won and the peace was fairly nearly won.

But, Tet was portrayed as a defeat for the American effort by the media and that view was adopted by a large segment of our country. Indeed, it has entered the conventional wisdom as a symbol of the futility of exercising American power.

The political climate that emerged from such a biased view, led to precipitous withdraw of American forces based upon unilateral timetables that bore no relationship to what was actually happening in Vietnam. (Sound familiar?)

In 1968’s Tet battles, the US had 543,400 military personnel in South Vietnam. The politically imposed reductions lowered that number by more than 90 percent to 49,000 by early 1972. In spite of those reductions, a dramatic shift in the tactics used by the U.S. forces and acceleration in training and empowering the South Vietnamese military helped secure the peace after Tet.

The reductions in US force levels were accompanied by promises to the South Vietnamese that the US would continue to support their country with supplies and air support. That promise was to be tested in Easter 1972.

On March 30, 1972, North Vietnam launched a conventional invasion of the South which, in terms of manpower, was larger than the 1968 Tet Offensive. Every combat division and independent brigade in the North Vietnamese army was committed. The South Vietnamese army faced them standing alone on the ground; there were no American troops to help them. They were helped only by continued supplies and available American airpower. (As an aside, my tour in Vietnam ended just a month before this offensive began. I was intimately familiar with many of the areas of conflict and followed it in great detail—my friends were still there.)

The results were the same as in 1968. South Vietnam, without US troops at their side this time, massively defeated the North. The Republic of Vietnam had turned back the communist invasion and was still in control of its territory. America’s quest to help an ally obtain freedom was almost accomplished. And, our fidelity was appreciated, as seen by the first quote above.

But, this victory was not reported in America. To the extent it was covered at all, the reporting was critical of the South and, especially, of continued US support of a “doomed” cause.

Political pressure to withdraw the US at any cost continued to mount, forcing a peace accord in 1974 that all parties knew at the time was a sham; North Vietnam would not honor any commitments it had made. Knowing that future attacks were certain to occur, the US promised South Vietnam that it would continue to provide military aid and air support in the case of another invasion.

The Congress didn’t care, it only wanted out. Treaty commitments were ignored. Promised aid was not forthcoming. South Vietnamese military supplies were so limited that, in some units, bullets were issued to the soldiers one at a time. When the inevitable invasion occurred in 1975, the South was truly alone; the US reneged on every promise of support that it had made.

Even though the invading forces of 1975 were no more powerful than those of 1972, this time they won handily.

Who can forget the images of the final day of Saigon’s fall? The rooftops were covered with those who had believed that the American Dream of freedom could be theirs. Their arms were raised to the heavens, some holding children. Those arms were not raised in prayer to God, but in unanswered prayer to the fleeing US helicopters that they not be abandoned.

The South Vietnamese lost their struggle to be free, and the cost of their defeat was high. The armed forces lost 275,000 killed in action. Another 465,000 civilians lost their lives; many were assassinated by the Viet Cong and others fell to the indiscriminate shelling of cities by the North. More than two million were driven from their country. Of those who stayed, an estimated 315,000 were either executed outright or killed in the vicious “reeducation” camps set up by their “liberators”.

I fear that my country is traveling down the same ignominious path that it trod three decades ago. Once again, we are trying to help the people of a country to be free and in control of their own land. Once again, we have many influential voices who have staked their political future to an American failure. And again, they are using the same tactics that they used in Vietnam to twist the facts, distort the accomplishments, and ignore the implications for those we are trying to help.

If they succeed in their efforts to get America to withdraw from the struggle, the strategic implications for the Middle East and impact on the US will be dire. But, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have joined with the US to fight for freedom and democracy in their country won’t care. They will be dead; killed, like others before them, for putting their trust in a country that is not bound by its own promises.

The combat troops of Vietnam shared an attitude that is common with the troops of today in Iraq: the cause of freedom is a worthy one and the people we are trying to help deserve that help.

It’s a shame that too many of our political leaders don’t agree.

What's Going On?

Today's Washington Post and National Public Radio share the same headline: "U.S. Casualties in Iraq Rise Sharply". The basis for this is the fact that 776 wounded U.S. troops in September is the fourth highest total since the war began in 2003.

These publications, along with the other "mainstream" media such as ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN make much of the 2,700 U.S. killed since the start of the war. Each week the death count finds its way into the headlines in some form. Periodically, many of them will post photos of the young men and women who have died.

I'm sure that these numbers are accurate. But, have you noticed that these same media sources:

• Almost never mention the number of enemy casualties?
  
• Almost never mention any successes achieved by the coalition forces?
  
• Almost never mention the many acts of individual heroism and awards for valor?

What does 2,700 deaths mean without placing them in the context of what is being achieved at such a cost? Yes, each death breaks the heart of a family for evermore. But, from the viewpoint of a nation, such a number doesn't tell us very much in isolation. For example:

• 2,700 deaths equal about three months of fighting during the height of the Vietnam War.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal a half a day of fighting during the Normandy Invasion in 1944.
  
• 2,700 deaths equal about an hour's worth of fighting at the battle of Antietam in 1862.

But, does any one of the above "facts"--by itself--tell us whether those wars were worth fighting?

It is possible to tell nothing but the truth, and still fail to give a truthful picture of what is actually happening. With the media focusing only upon the cost of the war and giving very little attention to what is being achieved, do you think they are really giving us the full story?

Regardless of your position on the war, please ask yourself this: Can your position be as fully informed as it should be, if your source of information provides only selected negative "facts"?

What's really going on here?

The Decline of Majority Rule

Among the most treasured principles of American democracy are “one man, one vote” and “the majority rules”. Together, they ensure that the will of the people cannot be held hostage to the views of a determined minority. They are the secret of our political stability; they force compromise. Unlike so many other countries that change governments with the seasons, we have been blessed with stability and a government that never strays too far from the center of gravity of American opinion.

That is beginning to change, and America is the worse for it. If you are among the many who decry the lack of bi-partisan cooperation in Washington, what has happened in the U.S. Senate has helped fuel the acrimony.

How this is happening is a little bit technical. But, the implications are so important that it is worth looking at. Here is the bottom line:

It has now become conventional wisdom in Washington that no important measure can pass the Senate unless it has 60 votes—a 60 percent super majority. This has happened because the Senate Democrats have abused Senate rules and the Republican leadership has allowed them to do it. The legacy of the 109th Congress will be a new practice that weakens the need for compromise and empowers whomever is in the minority to block legislation and thwart consensus.

This is how it came about.

The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, codifies the principle of “one man, one vote” in the sections that created the Congress and its two houses: the House of Representatives and the Senate. The vote cast by each of our elected representatives is equal to those of all other members of the Congress. The Constitution is silent, however, on what the voting standard should be for the Congress to enact a law. It does require that a super majority be required for such extraordinary actions as: impeachment, expelling a member from the Congress, vetoing a bill signed by the President, or passing an amendment to the Constitution.

But it says nothing about what will be required to approve a bill or, in the case of the Senate, confirm a Presidential appointment to the Executive or Judicial Branches. Perhaps the American tradition of settling disputes on the principle of 50 percent plus one vote was so ingrained in our culture, that the authors of the Constitution felt it was unnecessary to spell it out. And, that has generally been the practice until lately.

Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings. . . .” Thus, each has developed detailed rules of how it will conduct its business. They are different for each; generally, the Senate is much less restrictive on the rights of individual members. Under the Senate rules, the first Senator to ask the chair for recognition must be recognized and, once recognized, may hold the floor for as long as he or she is willing to speak. All business before the Senate stops at that point. The Senator holding the floor is in complete control and cannot even be interrupted without his consent—as long as the Senator keeps talking and doesn’t sit down.

The vast majority of the time, this is no impediment to the conduct of business before the Senate. A Senator will hold the floor only long enough to state a position or argument in the debate and then yield it to other Senators. But, when a Senator decides to capture the floor to force public attention to an issue, it makes for high drama. This is called a filibuster.

We’ve all seen the movie in which Jimmy Stewart bravely holds the floor to protest corrupt legislation until his eventual collapse from physical exhaustion shames the guilty into confessing the crime. In real life, the cause has not always been so noble (e.g. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina set the record with a 24 hour speech in 1957 to defend racial segregation), but the drama has been as compelling as the movies.

The Senator controlling the floor to champion a position forces all other 99 Senators to participate. A majority is forced to be available or on the floor regardless of the hour. Cots are brought in so that other Senators may sleep outside the door of the chamber to be ready for instant attendance when the quorum is called. It is physically and emotionally exhausting for everyone. But, the country is transfixed by the drama. It is perhaps the single most effective way to publicize a position for public consideration.

The only way to end a filibuster is to invoke cloture. This requires a 60 percent super majority vote. If all Senators are present this requires 60 votes.

Filibusters are messy and expensive. And, worst of all, from a political point of view, they can backfire. A Senator may feel strongly opposed to a position that a majority of the Senate and the American people would support. A filibuster will allow that Senator to bring everything to a halt for a while and focus national attention on his or her views, but it will also make that Senator personally responsible in the public’s eye for opposing a popular measure or nomination.

Wouldn’t it be more convenient if one could block legislation without ever taking personal responsibility for doing so? This is what is happening now.

The Senate has had a long standing, informal practice that allows an individual Senator to put a “hold” on a measure or nomination that will be coming to the floor for a vote. Implicitly, it is a notice that the Senator may filibuster the vote. A hold is secret. The name of the Senator requesting it is not made public. It has no standing in the rules and is not formally binding on the leadership. But, by custom, it is honored.

When a hold is placed, all action on that measure is stopped until the Senator changes his or her mind, the leadership breaks with custom, or cloture is invoked to preempt a filibuster.

This is the technique the Democrats have perfected over the past few years. A secret hold is placed on nominations and bills to which the Democratic leadership objects. This is done even when it is clear that a majority of the Senate—including Democrats—would vote to approve the matter. The Republican majority is then placed in the position of finding 60 votes to break the hold. Since the issue then becomes one of party solidarity on a procedural matter, that is a threshold that has been almost impossible to achieve.

The only way to circumvent a hold, as things are now done, is to have 60 votes in your pocket before you bring a bill or nomination to the floor.

As long as this practice is allowed to continue, it will increase in frequency until the vast number of bills and nominations are subject to it. We are not very far away from the point that passing legislation will require a three-fifth’s vote, not a majority. That is because blocking legislation in this way is a free gift of power to the minority. They have much to gain and nothing to loose.

When the ruling party has only a small majority, this practice increases the strength of the minority party. It gains not only negotiating leverage, but the power to disrupt or derail the other party’s legislative agenda. At the same time, there is no political risk or cost to do so. No individual member of the minority must take responsibility.

This is wrong. If a Senator feels strongly enough about a bill or nomination to block the entire chamber from taking action, then he or she should have the right to do so with a traditional filibuster. But, the Senator should also take the responsibility for his or her position. Let the country decide on the merits of the issue.

No Senate Majority Leader of the past, of either party, would have allowed stealth, in-the-dark filibusters to so weaken the ability of the Senate to fulfill its responsibilities. It is not too late to end the practice, and it should be done with the beginning of the 110th Congress in January.

How Intelligent is the Intelligence Estimate?

One of the most important pieces of advice my father ever gave me was to "consider the source" of an opinion.

Opinions do not materialize in the air; pure, untarnished, and shimmering with truth and justice. They come from people, and all people have their own interests and perspectives which shape their view of the world and, hence, their opinions. This is somewhat easier to see when we hear an opinion with which we disagree. But, is equally true for those opinions that agree with our own point of view.

Much is being made at the moment about a National Intelligence Estimate ("NIE") on Iraq. It was issued last April and leaked just before the mid-term elections. (An innocent coincidence, I'm sure.) The media fuss has forced President Bush to declassify portions of the NIE. The fuss has been caused by a conclusion in the NIE (starkly clear for Bush opponents, and subtly nuanced for his supporters) that the war in Iraq has increased opposition to the U.S. among radical Muslims.

I'd like to weigh in with two points.

First, NIE's are not the final word. They are often no more insightful than what one can find among the more thoughtful media commentators.

Secondly, so what?

I have read NIE's in the past. They are highly classified analyses that represent the consensus viewpoint among a dozen intelligence agencies. Each agency gets a vote on what position the NIE will take. That agency vote is, itself, the product of a consensus developed within the agency and colored by the perspective and objectives of that agency. The result is almost always the lowest common denominator (i.e. the safest and least controversial) opinion.

As an example, in 1973 the King of Jordan secretly gave the U.S. the Egyptian battle plans for their surprise attack on Israel well in advance of that attack. But, because this was inconsistent with the Intelligence Community's consensus that war was not likely, this information was not believed. Hours after the war began, the U.S. intelligence agencies were reporting to the White House that this was no more than a large border raid, it was not a war.

When the topic is technical and ample factual evidence is available, the NIE's can be brilliant and very useful. But, in most cases, the factual evidence is spotty and contradictory. The answer is not clear, and the final opinion rests upon the individual judgements of its authors.

Wise decision makers understand this, and factor it into their decisions.

Lastly, many in the media and the political world are hyperventilating over the conclusion that our actions in Iraq are generating resentment among our nation's enemies. Why is this a surprise? Does one think that those we are trying to kill or capture will support those efforts? Can one imagine that they will not use the actions of the "Great Satan" as a rallying cry to obtain more converts to their cause of terror and jihad? Can one imagine that our enemies will stop their efforts to attack the U.S. if we stop trying to defeat them?

This conclusion of the NIE is neither news or surprising. It is the expected by-product of any offensive action in war time. The question, then, is why is it being made into news?

Consider the source.