The Irrelevance of Resistance in the Senate Confirmation Hearings

I find the Senate confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s cabinet interesting but a mainly a distraction. Far too many friends and colleagues are investing themselves in blocking this nominee or that. They are free to do so, of course, but it is something of a fool’s errand.

Donald Trump has won the election, and the Republican party controls:

• The Presidency
• The Senate (52 seats)
• The House (241 seats)

This means that no matter what, if the Republican Party maintains voter discipline, it passes its candidates by simple majority vote.

This should hardly be controversial. The American voters have spoken, according to the rules of the Electoral College and voting tradition. There is a new government in Washington. This government has every right to form a cabinet and begin the process of governing.

In a parliamentary system, this corresponds to a vote of confidence upon announcing a cabinet. It happens all the time.

The Senate confirmation hearings are useful in reviewing personal priorities or opinions or past history, but that is all these can achieve. Yes, the current crop of nominated secretaries may be controversial or repugnant to some. But they have every political right to take office. That’s the result of an election, given the duopoly in the US political system.

A Parliamentary system with more than 2 parties might bring about a more serious confirmation process, but even this is uncertain given the elected representatives we see in many countries.

Anyone expending their time and energy on trying to block Betsy Devos or Jeff Sessions should understand this. A party elected by majority has a mandate to govern, with the candidates it selects. 

If these candidates happen to be dangerous ideologues not fit to manage a corner store … well … that’s the reflection of the Electoral College’s will. When you examine campaign finance and voting records: is Congress any different?

If people are really that angry, it may be far better for them to invest time and energy in something tangible, like organising for the 2018 mid-term elections. The confirmation hearings are a theatrical diversion that offer nothing more than reinforcement bias. 

(c) Philip Ammerman, 2017 

Inauguration Day

I see a constant stream of frustration, disgust and anger on Facebook and many other channels tonight as President Donald J. Trump takes office. Certainly, there is much to be disgusted about.

Let’s look beyond the anger. The question is, as individuals, what can any one individual do in the face of a system such as the one we find ourselves in?

Politics is disparate, and something of an equilibrium. Donald Trump and the Republicans control Congress for the next 2 years. If you are angry, mobilise now and win a Democratic majority in Congress in 2018.

The next elections are on Tuesday, November 6^th, 2018. All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are included, as are 33 of the 100 seats in the Senate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2018

If you are angry at Trump and his election, then one creative and positive outlet you have is to organize now for November 2018.

But while you are doing this, it’s important to reflect on a couple of things.

First of all, don’t define yourself solely by what you are against. Define yourself as well by what you are for. You will find that this is more difficult, particularly when you ask others to stand for the same things, and vote together.

So compromise is essential in politics.

Second of all, reflect that many of the voters who voted for Trump have a serious reason for doing so (and I’m not referring to the lobbyists or billionaires seeking tax breaks or public contracts). I’m referring to the middle class and the blue collar families, who have really been left behind.

Ironically, Hillary Clinton’s policies would have been much more beneficial for most in this group. Trump won because his supporters believed he would do a better job (and he won the Electoral College math).

Whatever the case, the United States faces drastic problems in terms of debt, falling tax revenue, loss of economic competitiveness, monopoly situations in many sectors (including start-ups), an abysmal national healthcare policy, an unbalanced military policy, and many other problems.

These are not going to be easy problems to solve. At least not sustainably, or rationally.

So your first job is probably to try to understand what the current situation is, what the root causes are, and what the possible solutions are.

These solutions are going to cost money. Unless you are prepared to pay for them (or force others to pay for them), they will be difficult to solve.

Finally, if I can share one point from my personal experience: Back in 1999/2000, I was equally horrified by the Florida vote recount and George W. Bush’s election.

Much of what I feared from that time materialized. Most of this was due to an incredible ignorance among the governing class, as well as the mendacity of those who support and enable it.

In 2017, this is now infinitely worse. It is institutionalized.

My advice is: make sure you are taking care of yourself. We are now in a very “risk-on” world. You simply can’t take anything for granted. Do whatever is possible to survive and evolve, especially financially. Protect your assets. Improve your employability. Make sure you are as flexible, nimble and agile.

The issues we are seeing now are only leading indicators of a far more serious and deleterious situation, and one that is practically impossible to reverse.

-->

So, get ready.

Princeton establishes a Center for Scholars in Athens

Princeton University's tradition of deep commitment to the humanities has long been connected to Greece and Hellenic culture, from antiquity to the present. On Tuesday, Nov. 1, the University added a formal home base for Princeton scholars in Greece with the opening of the Princeton University Athens Center for Research and Hellenic Studies. Three years in the planning, the Center is led by the University's Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies.

"An academic home in Greece embodies some of the key goals of the Stanley J. Seeger Hellenic Fund, established in 1979," said Dimitri Gondicas, founding director of the Seeger Center and a 1978 alumnus. "Creating the Princeton Athens Center was consistent with the vision of our benefactor, Stanley J. Seeger '52, whose legendary generosity made it possible for Princeton to be a world leader in Hellenic studies." Every year, the Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies supports more than 100 Princetonians for study and research in Greece, said Gondicas.

At an evening reception at the new Center, Gondicas opened his remarks in Greek: "Kalos orisate! Welcome! … Princeton has enjoyed strong, enduring links with the Hellenic world, and it has been an international leader in the study of Greek culture. As scholars, educators, philanthropists, public servants, business people, art collectors and writers, Princetonians have contributed immensely to the cultural and international relations between Greece and the United States."

Princeton President Christopher L. Eisgruber participated in the ribbon-cutting ceremony and greeted the 55 guests including faculty, students, friends, and more than 30 undergraduate and graduate alumni spanning more than 50 years.

"This is the first time Princeton University has opened a research and scholarship center anywhere outside of the United States," said Eisgruber, Class of 1983. Acknowledging the "extraordinary generosity and vision" of Seeger's gifts and the gifts of many alumni attending the reception, Eisgruber said that one of the reasons the University chose to establish the center in Athens "as we become a more international university" is Princeton's "extraordinary humanistic tradition that finds its home here in Athens and in Greece."

He said these alumni gifts ask the University "to build upon the study of ancient and modern Greece and to do so in a way that understands the broad influence of Greece in the world. As we seek to make this enterprise succeed ... we will depend on our connections here in Greece to make this a thriving hub of activity."

Read the full article at the Princeton Club of Greece website. 

 

Reflections on Cyprus Independence Day

I watched a little bit of the military parade in Nicosia today. I can't help wishing this day could be commemorated with something more than shrill journalists from state-owned channels eulogising young men in uniform, while old politicians in sharp suits and Rambo-style shades applaud from the stage.

Of course we need military preparedness. But independence today, no matter in what country we live in, is so much more than this.

So much more than the hollow slogans and fixations with military equipment that is itself 2 generations old.

Where is the parade dedicated to economic competitiveness or innovation? Where is the parade dedicated to cyberwarfare and digital capabilities? To effective diplomacy and alliances? To an efficient public sector?

To honest and uncorrupted politicians, capable of strategic governance? That would be an empty parade indeed.

I reflect that Cyprus has made tremendous efforts in re-organising its civil defence and conscription system and is now in the process of professionalising its military. This is laudable, although no doubt more can be done. There are also few alternatives for this, given Cyprus' geographic position, history, and neighbourhood, and the fact that 38% of Cyprus is occupied by Turkey.

Yet, Cyprus has gone through 5 major economic crashes in 15 years. All of these are attributable to a lack of effective regulation, to political capture of regulatory institutions and banks, to abysmal managerial decisions, and to a society prepared to believe the impossible.

None of these economic crashes is attributed to military preparedness. Yet all of them have reduced Cyprus' independence significantly.

Independence today will be something secured by:

·       Effective and accountable politicians.

·       An independent and effective public service, adapted to the digital age and the globalised world we are living in, where a condition of ignorant stasis is fatal. This includes a modern justice system.

·       A consensus between political parties and society on what is considered mandatory, and what can be open to ideological interpretation. Ideally, issues like the national educational system, justice, and military should be non-political and non-ideological.

·       A society that invests to compete, rather than investing in flashy consumption. Particularly when the latter is financed by expensive bank loans.

·       A society capable of historical memory, real analysis and the ability to resist demagoguery, rather than one hypnotised by "proinathika", trashy serials, self-indulgence and narcissism.

·       A society capable of forging a balanced and coherent social compact between the young, the employed, the old and the disadvantaged.

·       Effective and innovative public and private sector management. Probably the greatest weakness we confront today.

·       A military force capable of very rapid and mobile, independent reaction, using asymmetric technological threats against a numerically-superior force with overwhelming conventional superiority in the air and on the ground.

·       Infrastructure capabilities shielded from digital and electro-magnetic warfare and unrestricted warfare.

·       A very effective public service, diplomatic corps, and media capabilities necessary to shift international public opinion and decision-making.

·       The ability to properly leverage and benefit from international alliances, avoiding the paroxysms and oxymoronic behaviour of all too many politicians today and yesterday.

·       An equally effective intelligence service.

·       A culture of investing in excellence, innovation and performance, at all levels. This is the only avenue a small country has today to survive and compete in a brutally rational economic age.

·       The ability to attract productive and innovative investment (domestic or foreign) and maintain a positive current account balance, as well as a balanced GDP and public sector budget.

I find myself today thinking of that iconic poster from the X-Files.

I want to believe.

Image of Fox Mulder courtesy of The TV Addict.

(c) Philip Ammerman, 2016 

My Top 5 plus 1 Picks for US President

Jeffrey Immelt. Photo (c) Eric Piermont / AFP / Getty Images, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal

Like almost everyone I know, I find it impossible to be inspired or confident by the choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump as presidential nominees this year.

Rather than dwell on these two candidates (as I have in many other posts), I’d rather start with a clean slate and brainstorm who I would be willing to vote for.

What am I looking for in a President?

·       At least 30 years of clear-headed experience and achievement, ideally spanning both the private and public sectors;

·       A rational, post-ideological, non-partisan approach towards governance;

·       The ability to analyse root causes and effects, and frame complex issues into a manageable structure;

·       Someone combining systems thinking with real leadership in the real world, not an ivory tower or an ideological wet dream (I’m thinking of you here, Ted Cruz);

·       The ability to delegate and manage teams in a complex operating environment;

·       The ability to make hard decisions;

·       Health and stamina: Able to work long hours under pressure;

·       A strong sense of personal ethics;

·       Ideally, a self-made man or woman, rather than someone of inherited wealth;

·       A commitment to serving the greater good while (a) upholding the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (b) ensuring that minority interests are protected;

·       The ability to work across party lines;

·       An internationalist agenda; a willingness to work with international organisations and allies in a meaningful and realistic manner;

·       A skepticism of easy slogans and sound bytes; an understanding that there are no easy solutions (or at least, few that are sustainable), and that complex solutions demand hard work, good planning and real sacrifice;

·       Knowledge of at least one foreign language and some international experience;

·       Capability to set objectives and monitor results;

·       A strong knowledge of history (and reality).

Top 5 Picks

So here is my pick, in order of preference.

1. Jeffrey Immelt

CEO of General Electric. If there is one person who knows how the American and global economy works across all sectors, including manufacturing, finance and services, it’s Jeff Immelt. Incredible line experience in the private sector. Incredible project management skills. Experience in managing teams in the most complex operating environments possible. By far the strongest, multi-sectoral international experience of any candidate: GE is working in over 170 countries. Critically aware of the need for innovation and competitiveness, including the need to develop and retain brilliant scientists, investors, and salespeople. Vast finance experience. Vast experience in complex turn-around management in complex competitive situations, which is exactly what America needs right now. Vast operational experience in value curve migration and new technology integration. He is more humble than his predecessor, “Neutron Jack” Welch. Although there has been a lot of turbulence at GE, this reflects the changing economy and multiple business cycles rather than poor leadership. The only negative point is that he has no public sector experience in the United States. But he certainly knows how government works, at all levels (Federal, State, Local). And he has worked with public sector officials of both parties for over 30 years now. I would vote for Immelt immediately and unreservedly, assuming he follows a centrist platform.

2. Michael Bloomberg

Former Mayor of New York City; founder of Bloomberg LLC. A real innovator; a very accomplished track record in New York City. A strong mix of private and public sector experience, although the latter is at the municipal, not the national level. Then again, it’s New York City. Hard to think of a more difficult global city to manage in the United States today. An internationalist and realist. A financial engineer who can hopefully find ways to deal with America’s burgeoning public debt. I would vote for Bloomberg immediately and unreservedly. I’d love to see him remodeling the Oval Office into a bullpen. Or just relocating where he does business. The only reason he’s second on this list is his age.

3. John Kerry

Decorated war veteran. Senator from Massachussets. Secretary of State. One of the most level-headed public servants America has, even if he can’t always express himself quite so well. This is someone who has literally bled for America. He knows how the system works at the state and federal level. An added bonus is his international background. One issue against him is his lack of financial / economics experience. A second issue is whether he can say no at the right time. He ran against George W. Bush in 2004 and lost, but continued in public service. He would be a safe pair of hands, but would need strong backstopping at Treasury and Commerce, and should not be beholden to Democratic party interests.

4. Colin Powell

Soldier, working his way up to 4* General and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of State in the George W. Bush administration. His greatest failure is his acceptance of the Iraqi WMD fiction. I believe he was bamboozled, and I believe he will not make the same mistake twice. An inspirational figure: a minority who has pulled himself up by his bootstraps to the highest offices in America by virtue of service. Only two issues against him: (a) lack of financial and economics sector experience, and (b) possibly not willing to rock the boat too much. Other than these points, this is a vastly superior candidate to anyone currently in the race.

5. Bill Gates

Founder of Microsoft, co-founder of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. After co-writing the operating system that everyone loves to hate, Bill Gates has spent 20 years donating his fortune to doing very beneficial policy- and science-based public service through his Foundation. My one worry is that he has no line management experience in the public sector, and would probably find this exasperating. He would also probably have difficulty running a campaign and relating to at least 50% of voters. But it’s difficult to think of a more intelligent systems thinker and futurist with a real track record of significant scale.

No Female Candidates

My one regret here is that I haven’t been able to identify any female candidates for President with equivalent seniority, ethics and experience. Anne-Marie Slaughter would be a strong choice, but she does not have the seniority and breadth of experience that the others on this list do. Carly Fiorina and Meg Ryan turned out to be less than stellar. Probably, I don’t know enough others. Any suggestions in this area would be very welcome.

Plus one Wild Card

Bruce Springsteen

I know. You’re probably thinking WTF!? But think about it. He’s 66 years old, and he still plays 4 hour live gigs on tour. He probably knows more about the working class and the average American than anyone else on this list. He’s pulled himself up by his bootstraps and has been composing and singing inspiring music for nearly 50 years now. He’s authentic. He’s artistically and financially successful. He’s been in every single US state and all over the world. We wouldn't have to live through any more navy blue suits and red ties and teleprompters. Sure, he has no public sector experience. He would need a really strong executive team to get him through the complex stuff. But he has great instincts and ethics. This is probably one guy you could trust not to lie to you on the campaign trail, or anywhere else. The only downside of electing him is that the E-Street Band would have to stop playing. If you gave me the choice of The Boss on November 8^th, I would vote for him over Hillary or Donald immediately.

 See you on November 8th. 

(c) Philip Ammerman, 2016