I have been slamming on our government in some of my posts lately.

It is probably more a sign of frustration than anything to do with democracy (because I am a huge democracy fan).

So.

I will try and back off by offering them a couple of thoughts (should any of them deign to read my little post) and an idea to discuss.

1. Please remember our forefathers:

 

 

“I am not a Virginian, but an American.”

Said in speech in the first Continental Congress, 1774, by Patrick Henry.

You will see my idea (a proposed solution) below but at minimum if they could remember that while representing local constituents they are Americans. And making choices for the good of America not just locally (and sometimes what is not good for local may be good for “the whole”). We need to remember Henry is known for his “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” speech.

He is remembered as one of the most influential, radical advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials and his defense of historic rights.

2. Take a field trip to the Lincoln Memorial:

While they all probably walk by the memorial every day, maybe there should be an organized field trip so they can all take a moment and reflect. They can use the time to reflect on a time when the country was divided and Americans were killing Americans. And what it took to lead at that time and reconnect a divided nation.

We aren’t killing each other (at least only figuratively at the moment) but divisiveness is running rampant. And they are feeding the divisiveness. We elect them to lead us not just to follow us (or what we say). They should stand in the shadow of the memorial to one of our greatest leaders and remind themselves of that.

When in DC I have to admit that when standing in front of the Lincoln Memorial I feel the enormity of leadership responsibility as well as the greatness of America. The House Representatives and Senate members could use a good dose of that feeling.

So.

Here is the idea.

I don’t really like politics or pay much attention to it. Because I tend to be straightforward and logical and politics is anything but straightforward and logical.

Ok.

I have a random, completely non-doable solution (which reminds us that unreasonable ideas are often reasonable solutions to problems):

I am willing to let everyone currently in office serve an additional term with no election.

Just once.

They can act and vote as “Americans” without fear of “oh. I won’t get reelected if I do what I believe is the right thing to do”.

This idea has 2 obvious benefits:

1. Their decisions have some time to actually come to fruition to show some valid proof versus getting slammed solely for a voting record.
2. The country gets to save all that money and time that gets invested in trying to prove why you should vote for “X” politician.

Hey.

I wrote a post about “fearlessness in organizations” so that an organization can be as good as it can be.

So, let’s remove the “fear of losing a job” for one term and let them see what they can do.

Yeah. I know it’s undoable but it sure would be something to try.

(note: kicking ass for now)

I am not a theologian nor particularly religiously knowledgeable. However Christianity, and its role around the world, is very important to a number of people I care about and respect. Through work and some friendships I have been on the periphery of the religious discussion and Christianity’s place in today’s world. I have an opinion and this point of view shares it. You will see some numbers which I have used to provide some perspective. I have used as sources a variety of online/USA Today articles and research.

The situation (or challenge)

There is absolutely a decline of Christianity (no matter how you look at the numbers). Suffice it to say within the world’s largest democracies Christianity is a declining portion of the population in all but South Korea and Japan.

Conversions away from the faith are the mainreason. From 1990 to 2008, the portion of American adults who self-identify as Christians has dropped 10 percentage points (from 86% to 76%), while the portion of those who report no religious affiliation has almost doubled — from 8% to 15%. All the while Atheism and other forms of non-belief have been expanding in the United States.

The total number of Muslims is a little more than one fifth of the world’s population, over a billion Muslims in the world, a majority in 50 nations. Just 2% of the world’s Muslims live in the West. The growth rate of the Muslim population, which averaged 1.9 between 2000 and 2006, is also far higher than the world’s population growth rate, which averaged 1.2% in the same period. It is also much faster than any other major religious group.

Nevertheless, even if a Muslim majority is coming it probably will not be soon. Over the last six years the Muslim population has grown only about two thirds of a percentage point a year faster than the world population.

It is interesting to note (and relevant to this writing) that a conference of Muslim leaders in Mecca in 1899 was called to discuss the decline of Islam. From then the second half of the twentieth century has seen a Muslim revival.

Possibly most importantly, Islam is growing in organizational strength, not just numbers. It has undergone massive restructuring in the last five years. Mosques and other institutions are proliferating, and Muslims are exerting their influence in such fields as education, censorship and politics. This is no accident. A document produced by a prominent Muslim leader in the UK in the early 1980s described the Islamic movement in the West as ‘an organized struggle to change the existing society into an Islamic Society with the Qur’an and Sunna as its base’.

Islam is organized and focused and has momentum.

Okay. Let’s not haggle over the exact numbers. Christianity has an issue and Islam is taking advantage.

Attacking the Issue: Separate Religion from Church

I believe Christians need to separate their belief in the religion from their bias toward a particular church. To me religion is the practice of believing in a higher power, or at minimum, subscribing to a particular set of values while the Church is simply a place, or a construct within, you go to learn these things.

I believe church (or churches) are confusing people. Each church seems to have a different set of rules as well as a different interpretation of the bible. Most critically it has become difficult to understand what is unifying between all the different church groups (and I admit .. it may be there .. that unifying aspect .. but the individual church rhetoric is so noisy I cannot hear it). Suffice it to say the current situation has discouraged even some of the faithful.

Let’s get more people to consider Christianity (then offer a specific church group).

Hey. I am not against competition. And I believe every spiritual path has the right to be passionate with regard to their beliefs and their path. What I do believe is troublesome is when the “in fighting” creates confusion and the entire industry suffers in totality.

Every Christian church group should be passionate about their path to God. BUT. It shouldn’t come at the expense of the bigger issue – Christianity.

The best example I can think of at the moment is the US Armed Forces. I am quite sure that behind closed doors the Marines, Army, Air Force and Navy (and maybe the National Guard and Coast Guard and whatever) are pushing and pulling for their own self interest. And each branch has an identity and does whatever it can do to remind people of the difference. But come war the objective is clear, differences put aside and they work together to win. They understand the overall objective is more important than the individual constituents. Is there some chafing? Sure. Is there alignment on doing what is best for US interests? Sure.

There will be debate. There will be arguments. People will get pissed at each other (or whatever version of pissed off Christian leaders are permitted to be). But in the end the whole is stronger than the parts. I am confident no one, and I mean no one, can beat an aligned focused US Armed Forces initiative. And I would argue the same for Christianity.

Discipline. Rules.

One of the people I admire most in the world is a Marine highly decorated from his service in Vietnam. But my admiration and respect has little to do with decorations (although I admit it earns my ultimate respect), but rather with the man himself. He is a master coordinator, organizer and inspirer. As a CEO of a global franchise organization, he put in place the discipline and set of rules that defined who could be on his team and be successful. But that was the basics. He set out a framework of attitudinal “rules” and values as well as defined an organizational attitude. Instilled with these additional parameters, this organization, and others he has been associated with, clearly defined itself in the marketplace, gathered likeminded people and ultimately became globally successful and wealthy. So rules can include attitude as well as “things we have to do.”

Maybe Christianity needs the same discipline and rules as a successful franchise organization.

I apologize to theologians by comparing religion to a global franchise organization but the parallels are too great to ignore by a non-believer such as I. Disparate locations with a common goal and an objective to be more successful than the competition. If a 3000 unit franchise organization can figure out how to remain aligned enough globally to be efficient focused and successful, surely a Christian organization can.

December 26, 2004. I was there. On that day Ukrainians went back to the election booths and a majority of them again voted for true democratic candidate, Viktor Yushchenko (an earlier “politically managed” election had his opposition – Russian supported – winning a very close, corrupt election). This time the election successfully voted Yushchenko into office.

Viktor Yushchenko

This was the culmination of an amazing 17 days (I was only there for 4 of them), through harsh cold and sleet, where millions of Ukrainians staged nationwide nonviolent protests that came to be known as the “Orange Revolution.” The entire world watched this outpouring of the people’s will in a country whose international image had been warped by its Russian-supported corrupt rulers. By the time victory was announced–with Viktor Yushchenko’s electoral triumph–the Orange Revolution had set a major new landmark in the post communist history of Eastern Europe.

Election Night in Kiev

It was a win for democracy. It was exciting. And it reminded me that:

(1) I think we sometimes take democracy for granted here in the good ole US of A.

(2) Democracy is tough.

(3) Significant change – complete overhaul – is even tougher.

But first let me say.

It was an amazing place to be at that time. The political parties’ supporters were defined by orange and blue respectively. Throughout the city people wore their colors proudly. Streams of cars would drive the streets, horns blaring and colors streaming from their windows and antennas. There was pushing and shoving and yelling and the entire city just crackled with energy. It became even more special to me when that day I stepped into the elevator at my hotel and found myself sharing the space with Kofi Anan (who was pleasantly cordial…and interestingly – we Americans should note – he recognized me as an American even though I said nothing and addressed me in English).

That night into the following morning, Independence Square was filled with people, with music playing and speakers addressing the crowd. Khreschatyk Boulevard, the main street, was closed off and filled with street vendors and food and musicians. I am fairly sure the city did not sleep that night. And I was in the midst basking in their excitement.

But as I remember that spectacular experience, back to the three things it reminds me of:

Taking democracy for granted

“Razom nas bahato! Nas ne podolaty!” This was the chant I listened to in the crowd of hundreds of thousands that filled Kiev’s Independence Square on December 26th. “Together, we are many! We cannot be defeated!” Emerging from a sea of orange, the mantra signaled the rise of a powerful civic movement, a skilled political opposition group, and a determined middle class that had come together to stop the ruling elite from falsifying an election and hijacking Ukraine’s presidency. (maybe a precursor to the Obama campaign).

These people fought for democracy. And these people fought against communist memories. The majority of voters had lived under a communist regime at one time or another. They knew exactly what they didn’t want. And maybe that is what we forget having lived within only a democracy…what we don’t want. We have only had democracy and sometimes it is easy to overlook what you have. We shouldn’t.

Democracy is tough.

Democracy is about pluralism (I know that is simplistic but throw me a bone). Inherent in pluralism is being open and listening. Let’s face it…listening is difficult. Even in your own small world in business or life how many good listeners do you know? They are in the minority. People are so busy talking or shouting out their point of views they forget we are a country of “freedom to.” But that is tough. And that underlying belief foundation makes it not only tough for us (who have lived, ate and breathed it for 200+ years) but think about how tough it is for someone in which it is new.

For anyone out there who simply suggests countries are better off with democracy, make sure you think very hard about that. Yes. Democracy is powerful and good in intentions. But it is tough. And it is tougher than simply saying “we are now a democracy.” The Orange Revolution is five years old and they are still struggling to get their arms around the democracy thing. But they won’t quit (and that is the power of democracy).

Significant change – complete overhaul – is even tougher.

Let’s say the Boston Red Sox bought the Yankees and the Yankees ceased to exist and had to become part of the Red Sox nation (or vice versa if that pained you too much). Okay. I don’t mean to diminish the democracy of an entire country but you get the point.

I don’t care if you are a small company, a person trying to change habitual behavior or an entire country…wholesale change is tough. As a guy who has managed business transition I do know I like some of the old incorporated into the lot of the new when transitioning. In this case I am not sure they could…or maybe they tried but I couldn’t see it…or even if it is applicable here. What I do know is that wholesale change is never seamless.

And change, transition, requires people with resilience to ‘stay the course.’ I am pretty sure Victor Yushchenko, the Orange winner and current president, won’t make it past this point. And in a way it is a shame and in a way that is the way change works. People play roles. His was to forge the initial structure to make way for the next person to take it to the next level.

As I conclude this story and thought: I love Kiev. It is one of my favorite cities in the world. I love the Ukrainian people and their culture. But I truly respect Ukraine having experienced the height of the Orange Revolution. It was an amazing experience. I would like to think I am a slightly better person for that experience. I do know for sure that I take our democracy and country a little less for granted because of that experience.

So pull out The Constitution one day. Scan The Bill of Right
s. We are a lucky group of people who had some pretty damn smart and resilient people who started this thing we call America. Don’t take it for granted.

Well.

This has probably not even shown up on anyone’s radar with all that has been going on (you know…Tiger shacking up, the recession, the new Harry Potter movie).

But almost 225 years after the US Government screwed the American Indians they may actually be slightly unscrewing them.

That said … I am imagining that simply giving them their land back isn’t really an option. Therefore … giving them money seems the way the US Government has elected to address the issue. After maybe 13 years or so in the US Government legal system, it seems earlier this week some judge took the proverbial buffalo by the horns and made a decision.

Here is an overview of the restitution case: (just telling you so I can get to what I want to say):

In the Cobell v. Salazar case, funds are awarded based on the legal principle of restitution in contract law, which attempts to restore a rightful owner to his or her previous state by compensating him or her for loss, damage, or injury. All based on trusts as a legacy of an 1887 law/treaty that put Indian lands into individual trusts (wow. Even now that looks like a beautiful scam to screw them from money AND land). The restitution is set for $3.4 billion (an admitted fraction of the real value). And it only goes to living descendants (many American Indians without descendants passed on before the courts could make a decision).

Ok.

I think we can all admit we screwed them over pretty good.

Now.

To be clear. I am not a “give money to pay off bad deeds” sort of guy.

Too many things can happen to that money as it weaves its way through government dispensation groups and “restitution stewards” and things like that (Ok. So maybe I am not the most trusting guy. But we are talking about 3.4 billion so give me a break).

I imagine I may not be thinking of restitution simply in terms of limited dollars and cents. In fact, I am sure through some PhD-actuarial-voodoo-accounting people figured out exactly the value of “what we screwed them out of in today’s value” and came up with a number (and then decreased it by 90% to accommodate government administrative expenses).

Well.

I guess that is one way of doing it.

How about we attempt to take steps to right the wrong?

Set up a college scholarship trust for every American Indian descendant. If they decide to not go to college they still get the money to apply toward work & life.

How about make sure every American Indian kid has an Apple, or PC, computer and internet access in their home?

How about making sure each American Indian child has a school with great teachers to attend?

How about making sure every American Indian child has a roof to live under, clothes to wear and food to eat?

Looking backwards with restitution is tough. Do we give money to bitter adults (ok, that was a sweeping generalization to make a point) or try to fix the problem?

Lastly.

The American Indian elderly. This group has toiled through maximum ‘screwedness’ as well as they are the keepers of American Indian heritage.

They should be treated as the sage keepers of heritage and given the reward for waiting.

Does this mean send them all to Hawaii on a cruise ship? Nope. It means building appropriate housing and care for them. The elderly (not just American Indian) represent a knowledge base of learning and lore and experience that should be cherished and nurtured (and even more so within the American Indian culture).

Is what I am suggesting a practical restitution?

Heck. I doubt it.

But as a quasi-business guy I tend to look at solutions from the bottom up…what do we think is the right thing to do tactically and how much will it cost (instead of saying “hey, what is the value of this nebulous thing we have been debating for almost 2 decades?)

Smarter minds than I are slaving over this. All I can say is in the end I am fairly sure the American Indian is still going to get screwed. Just not as screwed as they were before.

But.

Maybe we should remember the wise words of… well…an American Indian.

Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

Maybe we should admit this guy was smart enough to offer a solution even 225 years ago or so.

Maybe we should honor Red Cloud’s vision, and impact ‘seven generations’ with whatever monies have been deemed “restitution”.

We can make the American dream of a prosperous future for the American Indian descendants a reality.

Maybe we can unscrew a pretty screwed up situation. And maybe we can take solace in the fact that it is never too late to right a wrong.

I love all the letters to the editor, the newspaper articles, the discussion & debate and ultimately the fact we are publicly addressing a “broken” national program – the US healthcare system.

Three themes seem to dominate the discussion.

Change is scary.

While I would like to believe there is such heated debate over healthcare because people would like to do what is right, I tend to believe a lot of the rhetoric surrounds fear of change. Within all the discussion there is certainly a strong thread of “I don’t know what it should look like but I know what I don’t want it to look like.”

Sometimes that type of discussion freezes people into inaction.

I am certainly not proposing being hasty or thoughtless (and if anyone truly believes the policy isn’t being discussed seriously and well thought out…well…they are crazy) but at some point we need to stop talking and start doing. The current system is flawed. Any system we end up putting in place will have some flaws (just less than the one we have, one should believe) but…does it have to be perfect? Absolutely not. I realize perfection is impractical (if we want to fix the current state at least within the next millennium).

Profitability.

Senator Jay Rockefeller D-WVa “the insurance companies in my judgment are determined to protect their profits.” I have seen or heard derivations of this thought throughout the healthcare debate – from the public as well as the government. Okay people.

First. They are a business. In a competitive marketplace. Their purpose is to make a profit (or a not for profit company). Unless mandated otherwise they are permitted to make a profit (and people can elect a different choice if they don’t like it). Okay. I know I made a sweeping point with a lot of debatable aspects but since when has a business in a competitive marketplace been restricted on profitability? Second. Anyone who knows anything about healthcare finances and managing “risk to insure everyone receives coverage in the event of a catastrophe” is a tricky proposition. Suffice it to say I would rather they make some money rather than not have enough money if a catastrophe happens.

Third. Re-investing profits back into the business. Interestingly most healthcare companies have excellent programs developed and available. And if people used these programs the company may actually be a little less profitable, charge less and, best of all, there would be a healthier population.