Wednesday, September 28, 2011

On My Heart Today, These Poems

These particular poems of the 14th-century Sufi poet, Hafiz, are on my heart and mind today. At one time or another, for one reason or another, I have claimed them on this space before. Today I claim them anew, just because it's today and today has its reasons, because they are still there and a gift to me.

The Heart is Right*

The heart is right
To cry

Even when the smallest drop of light,
Of love,
Is taken away.

Perhaps you may kick, moan, scream
In a dignified
Silence.

But you are so right
To do so in any fashion

Until God returns
To you.

My Sweet, Crushed Angel** 

You have not danced so badly, my dear,
Trying to hold hands with the Beautiful One.


You have waltzed with great style,
My sweet, crushed angel,
To have ever neared God's Heart at all.


Our Partner is notoriously difficult to follow,
And even His best musicians are not always easy
To hear.


So what if the music has stopped for awhile.

So what
If the price of admission to the Divine
Is out of reach tonight.


So what, my dear,
If you do not have the ante to gamble for Real Love.


The mind and the body are famous
For holding the heart ransom,
But Hafiz knows the Beloved's eternal habits.


Have patience,

For He will not be able to resist your longing
For long.


You have not danced so badly, my dear,
Trying to kiss the Beautiful One.


You have actually waltzed with tremendous style,
O my sweet,
O my sweet, crushed angel.


Brave in That Holy War*

You have done well
In the contest of madness.

You were brave in that holy war.

You have all the honorable wounds
of one who has tried to find love

Where the Beautiful Bird does not drink...

Wayfarer,
Why not rest your tired body?
Lean back and close your eyes.

Come morning
I will kneel by your side and feed you.
I will so gently
Spread open your mouth

And let you taste something of the
Sacred mind and life.

Surely
there is something wrong
With your ideas of
God

If you think
If you think our beloved would not be so
Tender.

Just You and Me*

The closer
I get to You, Beloved,
The more I can see
It is just You and me alone
In this
World.

I hear
A knock at my door,
Who else could it be,
So I rush without brushing
My hair.

For too many nights
I have begged for Your
Return.

And what
Is the use of vanity
At this late hour, at this divine season,
That has now come to my folded
Knees.

If your love letters are true dear God,
I will surrender myself to
Who you keep saying
I am.


*from The Gift (1999), poetry ascribed to Hafiz, as freely interpreted by Daniel Ladinsky.
**from I Heard God Laughing: Poems of Hope and Joy (1996, 2006), poetry ascribed to Hafiz, as freely interpreted by Daniel Ladinsky.
 

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

It's Time for a Palestinian State


I was surprise how, without a moments thought, without analyzing it, I reflexively and without qualification judged President Obama wrong.  After all, I have been a strong supporter of Obama on most issues. There have been notable exceptions, to be sure, but I've found him on the right side of most issues from my perspective. More, I've been an unwavering defender of Israel's right to exist as a state--and an advocate of American support for her security in an area and among nations often hostile to that notion and Israel's interests.

But when President Obama opposed Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas' application to the U.N. for recognition as a state, and threatened to veto it, something in side me cried, "Foul!" and "Wrong!" Obama's hand-waving about the need for more negotiations, and his missing-the-point statements that declaring Palestine a state doesn't make it so, that it would do more harm than good, that more patience was needed, and blah, blah, blah, is part misguided Middle East geopolitics, part American electoral politics, part dissembling and part legerdemain, but all-in-all is just wrong. A U.N. vote for Palestinian statehood, in the General Assembly if not the Security Council, would at least provide an observer's seat at the U.N. table and a lot more incentive for Netanyahu and Israel to get serious and committed to agreement on the necessary boundaries and conditions for statehood that all understand full well.

But again, I turn to the pages of The Economist for a well-reasoned and clear-eyed analysis of why the U.N should now vote to accept Palestine's application for statehood--and why President Obama should support it. From The Economist:
THE Palestinians are edging closer to getting a recognised state, at least on paper. Their application to the UN's Security Council will be rebuffed by an American veto. But if they then go to the UN General Assembly, which seems likely sooner or later, the Palestinians will win an overwhelming majority. The "observer" status that would be given to them would be similar to that of the Vatican—a position short of full membership, which can be conferred only by the Security Council. It would not make an immediate difference on the ground but would help the Palestinians on their way to the real thing by giving them a diplomatic fillip. It should be encouraged, for reasons of both principle and practice. 
The principle is simple: the Palestinians deserve a state, just as the Israelis do. The United States, the European Union and the Israeli government have all endorsed a two-state solution. There is broad agreement that the boundary should be based on the pre-1967 one, with land swaps allowing Israel to keep its biggest settlements close to the line, in return for the Palestinians gaining land elsewhere; Jerusalem should be shared; and the Palestinians should give up their claimed right of return to Israel proper. That still leaves much room for negotiation. But provided that the Palestinian request at the UN, still unfiled as The Economist went to press, does not undermine the basic terms of this deal, it is hard to see why any peacemaker, including America's Barack Obama, should oppose a proposal that nudges Palestine closer to real statehood (see article). 
Israel's government, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, and his backers abroad, especially in the United States Congress, insist that Palestinian statehood is premature: instead of going to the UN, the Palestinians should return to the negotiating table without tiresome preconditions, such as demanding a freeze on the building of Jewish settlements. Mr Obama, keen to reassert his pro-Israel credentials before next year's election, seems likely to oppose even the Vatican option. 
This is barmy. The argument that the Palestinians must resume negotiations before getting statehood is specious. Why on earth should a change in status at the UN stop people talking? Besides, the negotiations have been going nowhere—and Mr Netanyahu has been the biggest stumbling-block. Since his grudging acceptance two years ago of the two-state principle, Israel's prime minister has shown no eagerness or flexibility in his purported pursuit of a deal. Settlement-building on the West Bank, which he has refused to stop (barring a partial nine-month freeze), is no mere side issue; the Palestinians accurately liken it to the spectacle of two people negotiating over how to share a pizza while one of them continues to eat it. (Unlike the UN status, this does change things on the ground.) In his speech to Congress in May Mr Netanyahu refused to accept that Jerusalem, whose eastern Arab-populated part the Palestinians see as their capital, should be shared. He even inveighed against the notion that negotiations over the boundary should be on the basis of the pre-1967 line with swaps. 
[...] 
A more secure Israel amid the Arab spring 
In truth, Israel will be safer when a proper Palestinian state has been consolidated. That is a point that too few Israelis and their American supporters appreciate. This newspaper has argued steadfastly for the right of Israel to exist. We abhor the creeping delegitimisation and demonisation of Israel. But we also believe that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. These two beliefs are entirely compatible. By his intransigence Mr Netanyahu has played into the hands of those who would destroy Israel. In blocking any Palestinian aspirations at the UN, America is helping extremists on both sides. 
---"Yes to Palestinian Statehood: Efforts to stop the Palestinians from winning statehood at the UN are misguided and self defeating," The Economist, Leaders section (9.24.11)
These negotiations have been going on for 20 years or more, and the extreme political elements of both Israel and Palestine have toiled to deny their nominal leaders any real latitude for movement toward accepting the necessary contours and conditions of peaceful agreement to a Palestinian state. Now a Palestinian leader stands ready to do the hard work to make this happen. Most Palestinians want it. Most Israelis want it. Most Europeans, Americans, and everyone else wants it. And they all have wanted it for a long time. The only barrier is now Netanyahu and his backers in Israel and the U.S. And there appears no reason to expect that is going to change. Why wouldn't Mr. Abbas take the initiative to the U.N.? Why wouldn't that be the bold and smart thing to do--if you want to shake up the process, and create some incentives for Israel and the U.S. to get real about this, that is? 

(I am so awfully disappointed in Obama's position on this matter. How can he continue to get things so wrong in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now regarding a Palestinian state? How?)

Link to article:

Monday, September 26, 2011

The Economist: Tax Reform to Increase Tax Revenues

This week The Economist has offered something for us to think respectfully about: raising tax revenue through tax reform rather relying principally on increased rates on high-income individuals. (And they do allow that Obama's proposal for a very modest increase in the highest bracket is not a significant problem.) Their approach to tax reform is not at all a new idea--but it is an important one. And unsurprisingly--to some of us, at least--it is very much a part of President Obama's thinking as well. The only ones against it appear to be the Tea Party-led Republican Party.

As a former corporate tax executive, I and others have advocated something like this approach for decades. But there was no sufficient constituency or crisis to inspire or force reform. Today the situation is quite different, of course. But what is most interesting about this proposal is that it now comes from The Economist, among the most principled, socially-accountable, and credible conservative and free-market voices. It is a solution that learned people of a responsible disposition support across the spectrum of political opinion. And while the Tea Party folks appear to listen to no one--knowledgeable, responsible, credible, respected or not--perhaps some winning coalition of responsible Democratic and Moderate Republican statesmen might find common cause around such a compellingly fair and reasonable solution.

From the Economist:
[...] The question of whether to tax the wealthy more depends on political judgments about the right size of the state and the appropriate role for redistribution. The maths says deficits could technically be tamed by spending cuts alone—as Mr Obama's Republican opponents advocate. Class warfare may be a loaded term, but it captures a fundamental debate in Western societies: who should suffer for righting public finances? 
Leviathan should bear the brunt 
[...] In general, this newspaper's instincts lie with small government and against ever higher taxation to pay for an unsustainable welfare state. We reject the notion, implicit in much of today's debate, that higher tax rates on the wealthy are justified because of the finance industry's role in the crunch: retribution is a poor rationale for taxation. Nor is the current pattern of contribution to the public purse obviously "unfair": the richest 1% of Americans pay more than a quarter of all federal taxes (and fully 40% of income taxes), while taking less than 20% of pre-tax income. And knee-jerk rich-bashing, like Labour's tax hike, seldom makes for good policy. High marginal tax rates discourage entrepreneurship, and no matter how much Mr Obama mentions "millionaires and billionaires", higher taxes on them alone cannot close America's deficit. 
[...] But there are three good reasons why the wealthy should pay more tax—though not, by and large, in the ways that the rich world's governments currently propose. 
First, the West's deficits should not be closed by spending cuts alone. Public spending should certainly take the brunt: there is plenty of scope to slim inefficient Leviathan, and studies of past deficit-cutting programmes suggest they work best when cuts predominate. Britain's four-to-one ratio is about right. But, as that ratio implies, experience also argues that higher taxes should be part of the mix. In America the tax take is historically low after years of rate reductions. There, and elsewhere, tax rises need to bear some of the burden. 
Second, there is a political argument for raising this new revenue from the rich. Spending cuts fall disproportionately on the less well-off; and, even before the crunch, median incomes were stagnating. Meanwhile, globalisation has been rewarding winners ever more generously. Voters' support for ongoing austerity depends on a disproportionate share of any new revenue coming from the wealthy. 
But how? So far most governments have focused on raising marginal income-tax rates, something most rich people respond to quickly (see article). Capitalists shift their income into less-taxed forms, such as capital gains; they move; they work less; they take fewer entrepreneurial risks. Even if it is hard to be sure how big these effects are, the size of the very top level seems to matter, so Britain's 50% rate is more dangerous than Mr Obama's proposal to raise America's top federal income-tax rate from 35% to 39.6%. Somebody earning $1m pays more tax in London than any other financial capital—madness for a place with so many mobile rich people. The excuse that it was worse in the 1970s hardly inspires confidence. 
Simpler, bolder, better 
Given the rich world's need for faster growth, governments should be wary of sharp tax increases—especially since they are unnecessary. Indeed, the third argument for raising more money from the rich is that it can be done not by increasing marginal tax rates, but by making the tax code more efficient. 
The scope for doing so is most obvious in America, which relies far more than other countries on income taxes and has a mass of deductions on everything from interest payments on mortgages to employer-provided health care, so taxes are levied on a very narrow base. Getting rid of the deductions would simplify the code and raise as much as $1 trillion a year. Since the main beneficiaries of the deductions are the wealthy, richer folk would pay most of that. And since marginal rates would be untouched (or reduced), such a reform would do less to discourage them from creating wealth. 
In Europe, where tax systems are more efficient, one option would be to shift more of the burden from income to property, which would collect more from the rich but have less impact on their willingness to take risks. The "mansion tax" proposed by Britain's Liberal Democrats would thus do less damage than the 50% rate. And on both sides of the Atlantic there is room to narrow the gap between tax rates on salaries and bonuses and those on dividends and capital gains. That gap explains why Mr Buffett, most of whose income comes from capital gains and dividends, has a lower average tax rate than his secretary. It is also the one hedge funders and private-equity people have exploited to keep the billions they rake in. 
There is a basic bargain to be had. Imagine a tax system which made the top rates on wages and capital more equal, and which eliminated virtually all deductions. To avoid taxing investments twice, such a system would get rid of corporate taxes. It would also allow for a much lower top rate of income tax. The result? A larger overall tax take from the rich, without hurting the dynamism of the economy. Now that would be worth blowing your horn about. 
--"Taxation and class war: Hunting the rich," The Economist, Leaders section (9.24.11)
Link to article:

Some Aspects of Spiritual "Contemplation"


I have a few things I'd like to share today, especially with those who may understand the context, and perhaps even with some who do not. But if there is to be any hope of understanding that context, I must first introduce and explain a few things about the Christian spiritual notion of "contemplation." And I choose to let Thomas Merton, a 20th-century Cistercian (Trappist) monk, introduce it for me.

Thomas Merton:
[...] And so contemplation seems to supersede and to discard every other form of intuition and experience--whether in art, in philosophy, in theology, in liturgy or in ordinary levels of love and belief. This rejection is of course only apparent. Contemplation is and must be compatible with all these things, for it is their highest fulfillment. But in the actual experience of contemplation all other experiences are momentarily lost. They "die" to be born again on a higher level of life. 
--New Seeds of Contemplation, Ch. 1, by Thomas Merton (1961)
 As you may have gathered, if you didn't already know, the term "contemplation" as used in the lexicon of Christian monastics and contemplatives does not share the same meanings that attach to it in common English usage. It is something of an arcane term of art, a term refashioned and used to suit the need because there is no other word that comes close to capturing the intended meaning--the range and depth of that meaning--implied by the referenced spiritual path and experience. Merton continues in Ch. 1:
In other words, then, a contemplation reaches out to the knowledge and even to the experience of the transcendent and inexpressible God. It knows God by seeming to touch Him. Or rather it knows Him as if it had been invisibly touched by Him....Touched by Him Who has no hands, but Who is pure Reality and the source of all that is real. A vivid awareness of our contingent reality as received, as a present from God, as a free gift of love. This is the existential contact of which we speak when we use the metaphor of being "touched by God."
This contemplation is something some people feel a spiritual intuition about and inclination toward; it is spiritually, possibly even genetically, visited upon them. And it is not for everyone; it just does not resonate with most. To read books on it to try to learn how to do it, how to achieve it, as though it were the next ambitious step on some step-ladder of spiritual advancement, is to misunderstand it completely. Again from Ch.1, Thomas Merton: 
Contemplation is also the response to a call: a call from Him Who has no voice, and yet Who speaks in everything that is, and Who, most of all, speaks in the depths of our being: for we ourselves are words of His. But we are words that are meant to respond to Him, to echo Him, and even in some way contain Him and signify Him. Contemplation is this echo....It is as if in creating us God asked a question, and in awakening us to contemplation He answered the question, so that the contemplative is at the same time, question and answer. 
[...] Hence contemplation is more than a consideration of abstract truths about God, more even than affective meditation on the things we believe. It is awakening, enlightenment and the amazing intuitive grasp by which love gains certitude of God's creative and dynamic intervention in our daily life. Hence contemplation does not simply "find" a clear idea of God and confine Him there as a prisoner to Whom it can always return. On the contrary, contemplation is carried away by Him into His own realm, His own mystery and His own freedom. It is a pure and virginal knowledge, poor in concepts, poorer still in reasoning, but able, by its very poverty and purity, to follow the Word "wherever He may go."
But if you would know more, if you would try to understand this contemplative experience, there are books you could consult. Reading the accounts of the contemplative writers across the millennia can be of great benefit to those called to it and experiencing it. And there are trained and experienced spiritual directors who can also help you better make sense of it all.

For me, there have been several such mentors from earlier times, but most important and helpful have been the 16th-century Collected Works of St. John of the Cross (ICS Publications, 1991), and the more recent 20th-century writings of Thomas Merton, a Cistercian monk and author of many books, including New Seeds of Contemplation (New Directions Books, 1961, 2007) and Contemplative Prayer (Bantam Doubleday, 1996). But to those without a felt inspiration or inclination, the reading can be dull, recondite and confusing. You have to need to read it. (Further reflections on this can be found in my 2007 post "Guides, Past & Present" on my What God? site.)

Now having come all that way (but really having barely scratched the surface of the topic), we may attempt to move on to two aspects of the contemplative journey and understandings that have been recurrent themes, resonating again and again with me. The first has to do with having one's spirituality and faith compromised and misguided by the co-optation of demagogues of cultural brittleness, narrowness, biases, and bigotry, whether based on nationalism, race, or distorted religious or sectarian motivations. After reciting a long list of things and experiences that contemplation is not, Merton also offers this:
There are many other escapes from the empirical, external self, which might seem to be, but are not, contemplation. For instance, the experience of being seized and taken out of oneself by collective enthusiasm in a totalitarian parade: the self-righteous upsurge of party loyalty that blots out conscience and absolves every criminal tendency in the name of Class, Nation, Party, Race or Sect. The danger and the attraction of these false mystiques of Nation and of Class is precisely that they seduce and pretend to satisfy those who are no longer aware of any deep or genuine spiritual need. The false mysticism of the Mass Society captivates men who are so alienated from themselves and from God that they are no longer capable of genuine spiritual experience.  
Yet it is precisely these ersatz forms of enthusiasm that are "opium" for the people, deadening their awareness of their deepest and most personal needs, alienating them from their true selves, putting conscience and personality to sleep and turning free, reasonable men into passive instruments of the power politician. 
--New Seeds of Contemplation, Ch. 2, by Thomas Merton (1961)
The second has to do with the mistaken notion that in spiritual contemplation there is some form of escape from conflict, ambiguity, despairing times, and challenges to identity and understandings, both existential and spiritual. Not true. More from Ch. 2, Thomas Merton:
Let no one hope to find in contemplation an escape from conflict, from anguish or from doubt. On the contrary, the deep inexpressible certitude of the contemplative experience awakens a tragic anguish and opens many questions in the depths of the heart like wounds that cannot stop bleeding. For every gain in deep certitude there is a corresponding growth of superficial "doubt." [This important but discomfiting experience can last for years and is addressed more comprehensively, more helpfully perhaps, in the expositive writings on the Dark Night by St. John of the Cross.] 
This doubt is by no means opposed to genuine faith, but it mercilessly examines and questions the spurious "faith" of everyday life, the human faith which is nothing but the passive acceptance or conventional opinion. This false "faith" which is often what we live by and which we even come to confuse with our "religion" is subjected to inexorable questioning. This torment is a kind of trial by fire in which we are compelled, by the very light of invisible truth which has reached us on the dark ray of contemplation, to examine, to doubt and finally to reject all the prejudices and conventions that we have hitherto accepted as if they were dogmas. 
Hence it is clear that genuine contemplation is incompatible with complacency and with smug acceptance of prejudiced opinions. It is not mere passive acquiescence in the status quo, as some would like to believe--for this would reduce it to the level of spiritual anesthesia. Contemplation is no pain-killer. What a holocaust takes place in this steady burning to ashes of old worn-out words, clichés, slogans, rationalizations!  
The worst of it is that even apparently holy conceptions are consumed along with all the rest. It is a terrible breaking and burning of idols, a purification of the sanctuary, so that no graven thing may occupy the place that God has commanded to be left empty: the center, the existential altar which simply "is." 
In the end the contemplative suffers the anguish of realizing that he no longer knows what God is. He may or may not mercifully realize that, after all, this is a great gain, because "God is not a what," not a "thing." That is precisely one of the essential characteristics of contemplative experience. It sees that there is no "what" that can be called God. There is "no such thing" as God because God is neither a "what" nor a "thing" but a pure "Who." He is the "Thou" before whom our inmost "I" springs into awareness. He is the I am before whom with our own most personal and inalienable voice we echo "I am."
That was Thomas Merton's experience and understanding, a more-or-less consistent one among many contemplatives. But yours or mine may not be entirely the same. And it is allowed, of course. We are each called to our unique path to walk, our own dealt cards to understand and play. Thomas Merton followed the direction of his contemplation beyond the history and life of his Christian monastic and contemplative experience to find what common ground and experience there was with the contemplative traditions of other faiths, spiritualities and philosophies.

In that process, he found both understanding and respect for them. In addition to Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian contemplatives or mystics, he studied, and where possible, spent extensive time with and wrote about the Chan/Zen Buddhist masters, the Taoist masters (Chuang Ze), and at the end of his life, the Sufi masters. He came to understand that God can be found anywhere in creation and among all people, but especially among those who in so many different but related ways seek Him and, yes, in one way or another, find and experience Him.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Harry Kraemer's Mission

Harry Kraemer's on a mission. It's a good and important mission. He wants to raise the bar on the values and processes by which CEOs, managers and professionals lead and manage America's businesses and organizations. He knows that is the only way to make them more productive, more innovative, more accountable, and better stewards of America's human resources and intellectual capital.

Harry has recently written a new book on the subject, From Values to Action: The Four Principles of Values-Based Leadership, and he is on the road whenever his busy schedule allows speaking to companies and groups to share the insights of his career-long experience from financial professional to CEO, and beyond. How has the book been received? It has received high praise, indeed, from CEOs and executives of some of America's largest and best companies, and from academics alike--including from one of the very best-led companies in America:
"In the post-crisis world, values and culture are paramount to corporate leadership. Kraemer's book provides leaders with the tools to develop their talent and fit inside a social context. His focus on self-reflection, balance, true self-confidence, and genuine humility ring true to me and are practiced inside GE. This is a new world. Values count. Get with it." 
--Jeff Immelt, chairman and CEO, General Electric Company 
Who is Harry Kraemer? He is an old and respected friend, and former colleague at what was then Baxter Travenol. He is now the former chairman and CEO of that global healthcare products giant, now Baxter International, and an executive partner with Madison Dearborn Partners, one of the largest private equity firms in the U.S., where he consults with CEOs and other senior executives of companies in MDP's portfolio. He is also a faculty member at Northwestern's Kellogg School MBA program, and a Vice Chairman of the Conference Board, a global, independent business membership and research association that provides the world's leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve their performance and better serve society.

Why did I write this and send it to you?  Because Harry Kraemer is the real deal. I like him, respect him, and really like what he is doing. He's been there and done that--and he's still doing it. And because I think his book should be read by anyone working in organizations or leading them.

So what are those four essential principles?
 Self-Reflection: The ability to reflect and identify what you stand for, what your values are, and what matters most.

Balance: The ability to see situations from multiple perspectives, including differing viewpoints, to gain a holistic understanding.  
True Self-Confidence: More than mastery of certain skills, true self-confidence enables you to accept yourself as you are, recognizing your strengths and your weaknesses, and focusing on continuous improvement.  
Genuine Humility: The ability never to forget who you are, to appreciate the value of each person in the organization, and to treat everyone respectfully.
Harry has been living and growing in these principles since the years we worked together at Baxter in the '80s. That's the Harry I remember. Sometime in 1999, when I was working at Textron, I picked up my latest edition of Fortune Magazine, and who was staring back at me from the cover but the new CEO of Baxter International, Harry Kraemer. And the story line was about how he was bringing his evolving convictions about higher value-based leadership to his role as CEO at Baxter. He believed strongly in those values then, he led by them as a CEO, and he writes, teaches, speaks, and consults about them now.

The principles appear simple, but as he says, implementing them in organizations can be very difficult. His many real-life examples help ground it, make it real, and provide assurance that these principles are not only workable, they are essential to a high-values, high-performance culture. And for those whose companies or organizations could benefit from learning more about Harry's message and experience, they can contact him through any of his organizational affiliations' links I've highlighted above, or by contacting me. I'd be pleased to put you in touch.

Some closing comments from Harry's book:
Values-based leadership is a life-long journey no matter how much a person achieves. This point was brought home in a discussion I had a few years ago with Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric. Jeff and I have been friends for many years, going back to the days when I was CEO of Baxter and he was running GE Medical, based in Milwaukee. When I reached out to Jeff at the request of the Kellogg School dean to see if he would be the 2008 commencement speaker, he graciously agreed.  
As we had lunch together before the commencement, I asked him what he saw as the biggest challenge in his role as CEO of GE. "Harry, I am trying to figure out how I can be a better leader for my GE team around the world," he told me. 
Here was a talented executive who was running a company that at the time generated more than $180 billion in revenues and employed more than 300,000 people, yet he was striving to become an even better leader! Jeff was correct, of course. Values-based leadership requires lifelong learning and a continuous process of self-reflection to discover those areas in which we need to grow and develop. We are always traveling toward a forward-moving goal; we never arrive. 
Values-based leadership doesn't happen automatically, and it isn't always easy. You will encounter distractions and pressures that can derail the best of intentions. When that happens, return to the four principles and take a moment to reflect. [They will take you] back to the heart of who you are as a person and as a leader. 

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Obama Sets Deficit-Reduction Positions for 2012, Including $1.5 Trillion in New Taxes From Well-Off & Tax Loopholes. About Time.





In a blunt rejoinder to congressional Republicans, President Barack Obama called for $1.5 trillion in new taxes Monday, part of a total 10-year deficit reduction package totaling more than $3 trillion. He vowed to veto any deficit reduction package that cuts benefits to Medicare recipients but does not raise taxes on the wealthy and big corporations. "We can't just cut our way out of this hole," the president said.  
The president's proposal would predominantly hit upper income taxpayers but would also reduce spending in mandatory benefit programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, by $580 billion. It also counts savings of $1 trillion over 10 years from the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. 
The deficit reduction plan represents an economic bookend to the $447 billion in tax cuts and new public works spending that Obama has proposed as a short-term measure to stimulate the economy and create jobs. And it gives the president a voice in a process that will be dominated by a joint congressional committee charged with recommending deficit reductions of up to $1.5 trillion.  
His plan served as a sharp counterpoint to Republican lawmakers, who have insisted that tax increases should play no part in taming the nation's escalating national debt. Obama's plan would end Bush-era tax cuts for top earners and would limit their deductions. "It's only right we ask everyone to pay their fair share," Obama said from the Rose Garden at the White House. 
In issuing his threat to veto any Medicare benefits that aren't paired with tax increases on upper-income people, Obama said: "I will not support any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans." Obama added: "This is not class warfare. It's math." [Budget deficit-reduction math, that is.] 
---"Obama announces debt plan built on rich," by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, on msnbc.com (9.19.11)
But President Obama really does believe in these principles and this type of plan--although he understands that broader, deeper social security and Medicare reform will be needed. It's the beginning of the campaign season, it's reaching out to his base, but it's also setting the opening position in any future negotiations. 

It is what he has always generally stood for. But there can be little doubt he was rocked off balance by the irresponsible, win-at-any-cost (to the country) tactics of the Tea Party-driven Republican Party and its anachronistic agenda--an agenda that would return America to the economic, societal and governmental environment of the early 20th century. Much less taxation; much smaller government. (That is, less tax to starve and force smaller government, and fewer, smaller government support programs and services.) What could be simpler--or more irresponsible? These are the social support programs necessary for the education, health and productivity of Americans, and in turn for the strength and growth of the American economy. 

And let's be honest, every authoritative economic analysis has concluded that the budget deficit cannot be closed by responsible budget cuts alone. Revenues must be raised, eventually on a broader base, but for now on those higher-income taxpayers. A 3% or so increase in taxes paid will not likely decrease their discretionary spending, and therefore will not create a drag on economic recovery. But, including those with incomes of $250K may be setting the bar too low, as Buffet himself pointed out, but somewhere between there and $1 million there is surely an appropriate number. And certainly, most corporate tax loopholes and subsidies are long past their useful and defensible lives, if they ever were defensible. There is a social equity principle to be honored here as well, as the president so eloquently embraces (below).

So what is the breakdown of President's plan? And what did President Obama actually have to say about it? More from the AP article:
Key features of Obama's plan:  
—$1.5 trillion in new revenue, which would include about $800 billion realized over 10 years from repealing the Bush-era tax rates for couples making more than $250,000. It also would place limits on deductions for wealthy filers and end certain corporate loopholes and subsidies for oil and gas companies.  
—$580 billion in cuts in mandatory benefit programs, including $248 billion in Medicare and $72 billion in Medicaid and other health programs. Other mandatory benefit programs include farm subsidies and federal employee benefits. Administration officials said 90 percent of the $248 billion in 10-year Medicare cuts would be squeezed from service providers. The plan does shift some additional costs to beneficiaries, but those changes would not start until 2017.  
—$430 billion in savings from lower interest payment on the national debt.  
— $1 trillion in savings from drawing down military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan.
In presenting his plan (and platform), President Obama brought out his strongest in content, conviction, and tone. It sounded again like he was mounting the campaign platform, again laying down political stakes. The time for indulging major compromise efforts will now have to be set aside for a season--for the re-election campaign begins here and now. From the president's speech today.
[...] Everyone knows we have to do more, and a special joint committee of Congress is assigned to find more deficit reduction. So, today, I'm laying out a set of specific proposals to finish what we started this summer -- proposals that live up to the principles I've talked about from the beginning. It's a plan that reduces our debt by more than $4 trillion, and achieves these savings in a way that is fair -- by asking everybody to do their part so that no one has to bear too much of the burden on their own. 
All told, this plan cuts $2 in spending for every dollar in new revenues. In addition to the $1 trillion in spending that we've already cut from the budget, our plan makes additional spending cuts that need to happen if we're to solve this problem. We reform agricultural subsidies -- subsidies that a lot of times pay large farms for crops that they don't grow. We make modest adjustments to federal retirement programs. We reduce by tens of billions of dollars the tax money that goes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We also ask the largest financial firms -- companies saved by tax dollars during the financial crisis -- to repay the American people for every dime that we spent. And we save an additional $1 trillion as we end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  
These savings are not only counted as part of our plan, but as part of the budget plan that nearly every Republican on the House voted for. 
Finally, this plan includes structural reforms to reduce the cost of health care in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Keep in mind we've already included a number of reforms in the health care law, which will go a long way towards controlling these costs. But we're going to have to do a little more. This plan reduces wasteful subsidies and erroneous payments while changing some incentives that often lead to excessive health care costs. It makes prescriptions more affordable through faster approval of generic drugs. We’ll work with governors to make Medicaid more efficient and more accountable. And we’ll change the way we pay for health care. Instead of just paying for procedures, providers will be paid more when they improve results -- and such steps will save money and improve care. 
These changes are phased in slowly to strengthen Medicare and Medicaid over time. Because while we do need to reduce health care costs, I’m not going to allow that to be an excuse for turning Medicare into a voucher program that leaves seniors at the mercy of the insurance industry. And I'm not going to stand for balancing the budget by denying or reducing health care for poor children or those with disabilities. So we will reform Medicare and Medicaid, but we will not abandon the fundamental commitment that this country has kept for generations.
And by the way, that includes our commitment to Social Security. I've said before, Social Security is not the primary cause of our deficits, but it does face long-term challenges as our country grows older. And both parties are going to need to work together on a separate track to strengthen Social Security for our children and our grandchildren.   
[...] But all these reductions in spending, by themselves, will not solve our fiscal problems. We can’t just cut our way out of this hole. It’s going to take a balanced approach. If we’re going to make spending cuts -- many of which we wouldn’t make if we weren’t facing such large budget deficits -- then it’s only right that we ask everyone to pay their fair share.

You know, last week, Speaker of the House John Boehner gave a speech about the economy. And to his credit, he made the point that we can’t afford the kind of politics that says it’s “my way or the highway.” I was encouraged by that. Here’s the problem: In that same speech, he also came out against any plan to cut the deficit that includes any additional revenues whatsoever. He said -- I'm quoting him -- there is “only one option.” And that option and only option relies entirely on cuts. That means slashing education, surrendering the research necessary to keep America’s technological edge in the 21st century, and allowing our critical public assets like highways and bridges and airports to get worse. It would cripple our competiveness and our ability to win the jobs of the future. And it would also mean asking sacrifice of seniors and the middle class and the poor, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations.

So the Speaker says we can’t have it "my way or the highway," and then basically says, my way -- or the highway. (Laughter.) That’s not smart. It’s not right. If we’re going to meet our responsibilities, we have to do it together.
[...] It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.  
Anybody who says we can't change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness -- explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that -- paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they're pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution.

Now, we're already hearing the usual defenders of these kinds of loopholes saying this is just "class warfare." I reject the idea that asking a hedge fund manager to pay the same tax rate as a plumber or a teacher is class warfare. I think it's just the right the thing to do. I believe the American middle class, who've been pressured relentlessly for decades, believe it's time that they were fought for as hard as the lobbyists and some lawmakers have fought to protect special treatment for billionaires and big corporations. [Amen.] 
 Nobody wants to punish success in America. What’s great about this country is our belief that anyone can make it and everybody should be able to try -– the idea that any one of us can open a business or have an idea and make us millionaires or billionaires. This is the land of opportunity. That’s great. All I’m saying is that those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families get. And I think most wealthy Americans would agree if they knew this would help us grow the economy and deal with the debt that threatens our future.

It comes down to this: We have to prioritize. Both parties agree that we need to reduce the deficit by the same amount -- by $4 trillion. So what choices are we going to make to reach that goal? Either we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share in taxes, or we’re going to have to ask seniors to pay more for Medicare. We can’t afford to do both.

Either we gut education and medical research, or we’ve got to reform the tax code so that the most profitable corporations have to give up tax loopholes that other companies don’t get. We can’t afford to do both.
This is not class warfare. It's math. (Laughter.) The money is going to have to come from someplace. And if we're not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit and we are trying to reach that same target of $4 trillion, then the logic, the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more: We've got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor. We've got to scale back on the investments that have always helped our economy grow. We've got to settle for second-rate roads and second-rate bridges and second-rate airports, and schools that are crumbling.  
That's unacceptable to me. That's unacceptable to the American people. And it will not happen on my watch. I will not support -- I will not support -- any plan that puts all the burden for closing our deficit on ordinary Americans. And I will veto any bill that changes benefits for those who rely on Medicare but does not raise serious revenues by asking the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to pay their fair share. We are not going to have a one-sided deal that hurts the folks who are most vulnerable.  
[Amen, and Amen.]
Another link to the AP article on msnbc.com:

Monday, September 19, 2011

From W.S. Merwin to e.e. cummings


The poetry of former poet laureate W.S Merwin brought to mind that of e.e. cummings, who blazed the path of verse that ignored conventions of form, capitalization and punctuation. But he offered the same brilliance, insightfulness, command of language, and range of moods and messages. Of course, e.e. cummings is already installed in the pantheon of great American poets, but W.S Merwin is destined for a place beside him.

Here's a few on love and lovers from a long-unread collection on my bookshelf, 95 Poems (1950-1958):

#91 
unlove's the heavenless hell and homeless home 
of knowledgeable shadows(quick to seize
each nothing which all soulless wraiths proclaim
substance;all heartless spectres,happiness) 
lovers alone wear sunlight. The whole truth 
not hid by matter;not by mind revealed
(more than all dying life,all living death)
and never which has been or will be told 
sings only--and all lovers are the song. 
Here(only here)is freedom:always here
no then of winter equals now of spring;
but april's day transcends november's year 
(eternity being so sans until
twice i have lived forever in a smile)
#94 
Being to timelessness as it's to time
love did no more begin than love will end;
where nothing is to breathe to stroll to swim
love is the air the ocean and the land 
(do lovers suffer?all divinities
proudly descending put on deathful flesh:
are lovers glad?only their smallest joy's
a universe emerging from a wish) 
love is the voice under all silences,
the hope which has no opposite in fear;
the strength so strong mere force is feebleness:
the truth more first than sun more last than star 
--do lovers love?why then to heaven with hell.
Whatever sages say and fools,all's well

#60 
dive for dreams
or a slogan may topple you
(trees are their roots
and wind is wind) 
trust your heart
if the seas catch fire
(and live by love
though the stars walk backward) 
honour the past
but welcome the future
(and dance your death
away at this wedding) 
never mind a world
with its villains or heroes
(for god likes girls
and tomorrow and the earth)

Sunday, September 18, 2011

More Merwin

I've been too long from the thought-provoking poetry of W.S Merwin. As often unsettling as comforting or peaceful, it is nonetheless a welcome, special friend who feels he can share it all with you, as if you understood and cared. I'm pleased to be back in his company for a time.

Merwin is a different take on things, a different feel. Sometimes you don't want to go there, but others, nothing will do but his verse. But it has changed a lot as the seasons of his life have changed--not in his brilliance, introspection, command of language, or his uncapitalized, unpunctuated verse, but what life has offered him or placed on his heart at that time. He's also one of those poets that it helps to read his bio, the key influences and experiences of his life; it adds insight and depth of understanding, I think.

All three of these poems come from his Pulitzer Prize winning collection, The Shadow of Sirius (2009). 


A Momentary Creed

I believe in the ordinary day
that is here at this moment and is me

I do not see it going its own way
but I never saw how it came to me

it extends beyond whatever I may
think I know and all that is real to me

it is the present that it bears away
where has it gone when it has gone from me

there is no place I know outside today
except for the unknown all around me

the only presence that appears to stay
everything that I call mine it lent me

even the way that I believe the day
for as long as it is here and is me


Heartland

From the beginning it belonged to distance
as the blue color of the mountains does

and though it existed on a map somewhere
and might be discovered by chance
and even be recognized perhaps
at an odd moment

it survived beyond
what could be known at the time
in its archaic
untaught language
that brings the bees to the rosemary

many years after it had been found
its true name remained
on the other side of knowledge

yet it was still there
like a season that has changed
but appears in the light

in the unspoken morning


One of the Butterflies

The trouble with pleasure is the timing
it can overtake me without warning
and be gone before I know it is here
it can stand facing me unrecognized
while I am remembering somewhere else
in another age or someone not seen
for years and never to be seen again
in this world and it seems that I cherish

only now a joy I was not aware of
when it was here although it remains
out of reach and will not be caught or named
or called back and if I could make it stay
as I want to it would turn to pain.


Wednesday, September 14, 2011

A GOP Defector: Cold & Clear, the State of the Grand Old Party


Mike Lofgren recently retired. He was 28 years a respected Republican congressional staffer and operative. But the cognitive dissonance created by the stark differences in values, views and orientation of this new Republican Party could not be resolved short of breaking his career-long association with it. He had been a Republican of a more moderate stripe, of a time when collegiality, social consciousness, statesmanship and responsibility more marked his party. Many of us can relate, Mr. Lofgren.

The changes that weighed on him were as fundamental as the Republican Party's very identity, its goals, and its tactics. For most of us who have been at all observant, inquiring, and clear-minded, his revelations merely confirm what we knew or suspected strongly. But to hear it voiced so clearly, so coldly, and so authoritatively by a 28-year Republican congressional staffer should be a wake-up call to all. He should have everyone's attention.

But for those who had preferred to think there was a higher ground to be served by GOP thinking and actions, a greater good somehow being served, this is a cold, sobering slap across the face of their naiveté, a stake through the heart of that delusion. He should have their attention most of all.

It must be noted, however, that the tone and conviction of the piece, however well-written and occasionally qualified, surely reflect his disillusionment, anger and resentment. His writing and his points are cold and presented with sharp edges that fashion a damning picture. But the ring of truth nonetheless is clearly heard throughout. His cause for writing, and his defense for tone and conviction, is the truth as he understands it--and the importance of telling it.

Thanks to daughter, Laura, for forwarding the article, knowing how it would resonate with me, a former moderate Republican nine years removed. It resonates with many other former Republicans, too, and some who still call themselves Republicans.

I offer here some excerpts from the article, "Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult." It is a long article, even by my standards, and I have quoted extensively from it. For those who want to read the full article, I have provided a link at the end of this post. Now, Mr. Lofgren:
[...] But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP. 
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy. 
It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages. 
[...] Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!" 
It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant. 
[...] The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith...Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself. 
John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. 
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980). 
The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'" 
[...] And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely fictitious. 
[...] Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting. 
You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.[2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear. 
It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. During the disgraceful circus of the "birther" issue, Republican politicians subtly stoked the fires of paranoia by being suggestively equivocal - "I take the president at his word" - while never unambiguously slapping down the myth. John Huntsman was the first major GOP figure forthrightly to refute the birther calumny - albeit after release of the birth certificate. 
I do not mean to place too much emphasis on racial animus in the GOP. While it surely exists, it is also a fact that Republicans think that no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate... Had it been Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, who had been elected in 2008, I am certain we would now be hearing, in lieu of the birther myths, conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's alleged murder. 
[...] While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists. 
How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme? 
[...] Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition. 
As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of 2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing: 
1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction - and even less spending reduction! - than Obama's offer, because of their iron resolution to protect at all costs our society's overclass. 
Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is fond of saying, "we won't raise anyone's taxes," as if the take-home pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs? 
Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme, since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net annual income over a million dollars is de minimis, if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses).  
[...] Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries, the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero. 
When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to "prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that fact. "Half of Americans don't pay taxes" is a perennial meme. But what they leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes. There are millions of people who don't pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes - among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don't count. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they're not real taxes. Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don't count, although their effect on a poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more regressive than on a millionaire. 
All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business press. Just listen to CNBC for a few hours and you will hear most of them in one form or another. More important politically, Republicans' myths about taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale "values voters," who may have been attracted to the GOP for other reasons (which I will explain later), but who now accept this misinformation as dogma. 
[...] 2. They worship at the altar of Mars. While the me-too Democrats have set a horrible example of keeping up with the Joneses with respect to waging wars, they can never match GOP stalwarts such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham in their sheer, libidinous enthusiasm for invading other countries. McCain wanted to mix it up with Russia - a nuclear-armed state - during the latter's conflict with Georgia in 2008 (remember? - "we are all Georgians now," a slogan that did not, fortunately, catch on), while Graham has been persistently agitating for attacks on Iran and intervention in Syria. And these are not fringe elements of the party; they are the leading "defense experts," who always get tapped for the Sunday talk shows. About a month before Republicans began holding a gun to the head of the credit markets to get trillions of dollars of cuts, these same Republicans passed a defense appropriations bill that increased spending by $17 billion over the prior year's defense appropriation. To borrow Chris Hedges' formulation, war is the force that gives meaning to their lives. 
A cynic might conclude that this militaristic enthusiasm is no more complicated than the fact that Pentagon contractors spread a lot of bribery money around Capitol Hill. That is true, but there is more to it than that. It is not necessarily even the fact that members of Congress feel they are protecting constituents' jobs. The wildly uneven concentration of defense contracts and military bases nationally means that some areas, like Washington, DC, and San Diego, are heavily dependent on Department of Defense (DOD) spending. But there are many more areas of the country whose net balance is negative: the citizenry pays more in taxes to support the Pentagon than it receives back in local contracts... 
Take away the cash nexus and there still remains a psychological predisposition toward war and militarism on the part of the GOP. This undoubtedly arises from a neurotic need to demonstrate toughness and dovetails perfectly with the belligerent tough-guy pose one constantly hears on right-wing talk radio. Militarism springs from the same psychological deficit that requires an endless series of enemies, both foreign and domestic. 
[...] 3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson's strong showing in the 1988 Iowa Caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. The results are all around us: if the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution versus creationism, scriptural inerrancy, the existence of angels and demons, and so forth, that result is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary or quaint beliefs. Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science; it is this group that defines "low-information voter" - or, perhaps, "misinformation voter." 
The Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, there is now a de facto religious test for the presidency: major candidates are encouraged (or coerced) to "share their feelings" about their "faith" in a revelatory speech; or, some televangelist like Rick Warren dragoons the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to debate the finer points of Christology, with Warren himself, of course, as the arbiter. Politicized religion is also the sheet anchor of the culture wars. But how did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs - economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism - come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism? 
It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes - at least in the minds of followers - all three of the GOP's main tenets. 
---"Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult," by Mike Lofgren, Truthout|News Analysis (9.3.11)
 And yes, there's more on this topic and others. But this provides a substantial sample of how he has come to see the GOP, where his Republican party has moved to over his 28 years as a GOP congressional staffer--and how far it has moved from his values, and the values of so many other moderate Republicans of an earlier time.

For those who would read more, click on the article title, above, or this link:

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779