A candidate possibly self destroying...

A candidate possibly self destroying...

(Click on the title of the post to read the entire post.)

[We, as humans, "hope" or "wish" that we could have the power to change all things.  But, alas, we don't even make a dent, as we flail about, but get no result, which in this case is a "nobody notices" it anyway.  I would love to have the power to cause the ultimate change I see the need for.  Despite the "no results", I still feel compelled to at least get my thoughts organized and in place.  So, the reader of this piece, if you so choose to read it, is merely a pawn in this process - unless, of course, as I would hope, you pass it on and it becomes "viral"... and isn't that a real fantasy of the primitive mind?...]

Marshall Goldsmith, a high level, very experienced coach, has written a book entitled What Got You Here, Won't Get You There." 

A perfect illustration of this is what is happening in politics today.  Though favoring no party nor candidate, without prejudice, and hopefully with some useful insight, I risk sounding biased (I am not), I will risk writing this.  Hopefully, it will be considered as gentle, thoughtful (though not necessarily "right') thinking and discussion. 

I write this because I just think that there is a great lesson to learn from this. 

The remarkable "marketing" of Donald J. Trump is a testament to his capabilities to get the nomination of his party, though he has set himself back a fair amount to a poor position in the polls..

His current skills in real estate, being a manager, being a marketeer, and even being a public personality are quite excellent (if seen without bias and prejudice).  Those are, what Goldsmith says, what got him here.

He has, to this point, produced a miracle, in a sense, of getting through the nomination process as a complete novice in the political arena. 

He has "nailed" down, pretty well, many of the hot buttons for many people and risen up the ladder of success despite the lack of diplomacy and certain key communication skills - and despite doing many things that were harmful to his candidacy.

So, he is now "here", stuck in a position that will not get him "there" (unless there is a new star in the East).  [Perhaps he should hire Goldsmith?!]

He needs to now learn what it is that will create the ability to navigate to "there", changing from his current path of continuing that which got him "here", but which will destroy him (or already has) in his bid for being President. 

He needs to be "a learner" and an exerciser of wisdom, as do many in this life. 

And wisdom always says that success is achieved by paying attention to and being aware of what is happening AND then acting upon the feedback, learning what is needed, and then CORRECTING COURSE (!!!!) - and fast! 

A person will not be a success if he does not do that.  A person will self destroy if he continues on the same, oblivious path, stuck in his old ways of being, impervious to the facts.  He will just end up being a character in a Shakespearean tragedy, keeping in place a tragic flaw. 

Although this is relatively simple, and the difficulties might be underestimated as well as misestimating what works in politics, it seems to me that, to be a winner, in his quest and in life, he should:

Take the feedback about his extreme rhetoric and about his focus on "getting even" (or defending himself) and stop doing that.  He must also change his "irresponsible, uncontrolled" rhetoric. Otherwise, he will not win nor will he be a good representative of this country.

He can still do the political tactic of tearing down the other candidate, who herself has made history plus lots of mistakes on the way.

But he cannot afford to continue saying, paraphrased here, "I can do it on my own, because of the people whose movement I am the messenger of."  He needs to align with those who can help him to campaign and govern (and get the laws through by having a Senate and a House which will support conservative causes and/or which he can persuade, perhaps with a lot of help from Mike Pence).  [He has succeeded as a lone wolf before, but he cannot win in a new position that requires otherwise.]

Although many politicians "know" that "tearing down the opponent is more important than ...", I think Trump must not make the Romney mistake of not adequately providing clear and persuasive arguments for why they themselves are capable of being a very good President and how they will benefit the most people.  Right now he is rated relatively low on ability, as the Democrats have artfully torn his credibility of ability to shreds - despite the proven fact that he is quite capable - yet he does not set it up such that their perceptions about his abilities are corrected!

He must "beef up" and make specific his policies so that the door is closed to misinterpretation and false representation. 

He must focus on and stick to a very well-designed campaign that is cool-headed and wisely strategic.

Now is the test of whether he can step up to being a true winner, a feedback/correcting champion, as a person, whether he becomes President or does not. 

We have, here before us, an opportunity to observe in action what makes a person a true winner or a saboteur of one's own life. 

What are you doing with your life? 



_____________________

Who will win? 

Who knows?  (But the probabilities are high that it will be a she...) 

But it won't matter much as no President can act without being restrained and inhibited by the "checks and balances" and various "powers" out there.  It will be more of the same, with a move toward being a more compassionate, helping country, but limited in largese by financial restrictions. 

One path will be smooth.  The other could be "unsmooth", with some downside risk (offending other countries, perhaps), but also possibly one of greater gain, because of the determination and non-controlled passionate advocate of change "for the people"...

And so we go on, learning very little, it seems, in a super complex political scenario. 

But "the people" are determining much of what will happen as a number of things are already cast in stone and cannot be reversed ever, as many social movements are clearly continuing, along with the problems of debt, huge social security and Medicare unfunded liabilities.  And we'll still be the best country on earth to live in, in many ways (though not in "being the happiest").  

I am sympathetic with some of the key points of both sides, the social issues and the financial competency issues.  Who is so high and God-like that he can determine what is "right", when they are strictly personally held beliefs that conflict with the "other side", where "our side" is right and the others are "demons" and/or stupid or wrong - though there are a few people who are able to be rational about all of this and to be kind to all people and not hot headed nor oppositional.

May the world continue improving, in starts and fits, and may we know a future far greater than ever before, where people are more objective, think with a cool head, hold good and better values, and seek greater peace and cooperation.

Yes, the rich can help AND...

Again, from well-respected reasoner Sam Harris, this is in answer to his post A New Year's Resolution For The Rich.  Again, it is the case for greater taxation of the rich AND, I think, it is something that needs a broader perspective around its "truth".  (My comment around leadership may be construed to be political, but I've only intended it to be observational and to be around valid content.  My position is firmly "in the middle" and integrative, not one sided, as you may gather from reading the whole reply.)

The reply:

Again, several good objectives. 

But progress is not made by putting too much emphasis on railing against a symptom.  Yes, pointing out the necessities of education, infrastructure, and green energy is very good.

But only if a clear vision of how to put it all together, specifying the goals that can be agreed on (no suffering, plenty of opportunity) and the strategies to use (with explanations and logic on how and why they will work) is provided by a leader will we be able to make progress.  It must be clear and whole, dropping the contentiousnes and narrowness of viewpoint - and it is up to each one of us, or as many of us as have the intelligence and education to do so, to join that rational middle position.

And, of course, all of us should contribute to that which makes this all work.  And those who have benefitted from freedom and free enterprise should contribute in some proportion to the benefit received.  It is not that some people have accelerated forward in wealth - that is not the correct issue for a long term solution - it is that we need to assure that none of us suffer, to the extent that we can provide against it.  But we have not progressed far enough in our wealth to do so.  The problem in the US is not yet solvable by the current wealth, but the amount needed for the world (those people are humans, too, not just US residents!) is massive - so we need to keep the golden goose going, somehow being able to have enough perspective to realize that scarcity is a problem but also that we need to divvy out the seeds for people to eat, investing the rest back into the "crop" (metaphorically).  People will always complain, basing their expectations on perfection (we should solve all problems, not realizing that there aren't enough resources accumulated to do that) and wallowing in idealistic notions that cannot lead to results without deeper thinking...

We need leadership that doesn't create divisions among us and them (the 1%) and how the problem is "the opposition".  Yes, leadership is aiming for good goals, but not doing it very effectively.  When there is no constructive conversation (and the other side is held to be at fault, garnering opposition to them), there is little hope.  Only when we citizens will no longer tolerate this will we choose a leader who will get us true results.  And it isn't about ideology on either side - it is about reaching the middle solution that can be accepted by all sides, with the leader being responsible to bringing both sides together (and never, ever, every complaining o blaming the other side).

Will you step up and take a stand for having such leadership (and to stop complaining about the "the other side")?

Is it about inequality, really?

Sam Harris, a well-respected reasoner, writes some interesting comments about bettering people and "redistribution".  The one I am replying to is How Rich Is Rich?  (Though it was sent to me by an individual, I wrote the reply as if it was from "AnyMan".)

 

He misses the point, focussing on a symptom (inequality) as if it were a moral issue.

I think that anyone who thinks about it wants to relieve suffering of those who suffer and make people better off and happier. 

The question is "how?"

If we fail to consider incentives and we let those go out the window, we will kill the golden goose (the increase in wealth that has transformed the world and relieved alot of misery so far, saving lots of lives along the way - progress has been made -now the question is what to do next that is the most effective to increase the gains at an even better rate of improvement). 

And, since wealth far beyond what is needed for basic happiness and security serves no purpose beyond providing investments which do result in jobs and more wealth is not needed for consumption by the wealthy, it makes sense to tax the income much higher IF the money will benefit the world overall.  Education (including "about life") and infrastructure and preserving the earth (climate, etc.) make sense (and, of course, providing a safety net for those who cannot do the work).  All of those are fine AND what is necessary is to structure all of it such that mankind has incentives to do what it takes to be productive, for when that productivity drops it has been proven over and over that the golden goose is killed. 

Only leadership that is practical and honest about this will be able to solve the problem.  The lack of rationality and responsibility of ALL parties (each of which has a few good ideas, but alot of irrationality and stubbornness also) is stopping us from the great leap forward we could make.  How do we change each of those and get to a responsibility and strong ethics mode? 

How do we get Democrats to cope with the impending monster of underfunding the Medicare and Social Security plus the interest cost of the debt (which will easily reach $1 trillion a year) when the combined income of those who make over $250K/year is 2.7 trillion before taxes, which is not sufficient to cover the problem.  More people need to be more productive and there needs to be more clear incentives for people to be productive.  The Democrats mean well, but "meaning well", by itself, is not a strategy that works.

And, yes, the Republicans are pushing too far, too ensconced in the conversation of the incompetence of government (with alot of evidence).  They are right about incentives and government fat.  And they do wish to provide a safety net, but not one for laziness nor non-incentives to produce - more people who are productive is the only solution that will produce ongoing prosperity - thus, we need to provide all the education, infrastructure, etc., to enable them to contribute productively AND we need to cut off all incentives that allow people to "play the system".

Each side has a weakness, but neither side is legitimately the bad guys nor the solution. It is a balancing act - and as long as any one of us continues to be on the attack (evilizing, taking only one side consistently and not looking at tradeoffs - and not using rational thinking and problem solving) little progress will be made.  The difference will be made by one person at a time choosing to go "to the middle" and recognizing that all sides want to do well for the citizens but that only effective compromise will create that.  If each one of us continues to complain, blame, evilize, then this will continue. 

Will you be the next person to pledge to stand for what works and be willing to stop the opposition and work toward the solution, limiting oneself only to rational, thoughtful, fact-based dialogue?    Or will you continue to be strongly on one side or the other?  Will you be waiting for "they" (other people) to solve the problem because you are complaining?  We will do well if you choose the first and only if you choose the first (your taking personal responsibility to be rational and constructive), because there is no "they" - there is only an "us", constructed one person at a time?

Will you take the pledge?