Can we be better?

Just a few hours ago I heard about the death of Osama bin Laden.  For over a decade this man has been the face of terror.  One friend on Facebook commented that a "shadow just lifted."  Another posted a statement rejoicing in his death.  The news carried images of young Americans cheering and chanting in front of the White House.  The images (minus the burning US flag) were not unlike those we've seen in the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan when American soldiers are killed.  

This got me thinking about where we go from here.  With all the differences between countries and cultures we have so much in common.  At our worst we celebrate death and destruction.  At our best we rejoice in ideas and achievement.  It feels as if we've celebrated death and destruction over the last decade in our pursuit of justice.  What ideas and achievements will be pursued now that this shadow has lifted?

Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice, or the LORD will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from them."  Proverbs 24:17-18 NIV      

We know this isn't really the end of terror.  But it can be the beginning of a new chapter in World history.  Let's spend the next decade re-building the bridges we've burned.  Let's spend the next trillion dollars of Defence spending to reconstruct the lives and places that were destroyed in our pursuit of justice.  Let's continue our pursuit of justice, but with wisdom and humility, otherwise are we any better than our enemy?  Let's strive, not to be better than others, but to be better than ourselves.  

I understand why there's dancing in the street.  But it just doesn't feel right.  We can be better. We need to be better.

Health Care Summit

Last week President Obama hosted a Health Care Summit at Blair House in Washington, DC. The president invited both parties to get together and discuss the health care issue while the whole thing was streamed on the Internet. This open approach was an effort to 'communicate' more clearly to the American people. A recent Harvard Business Review blog post by Morten Hansen highlighted five ways in which the president failed to demonstrated collaborative leadership during last year's health care debate. Last week's summit was a step in the right direction for Obama. It showed his willingness to act on his desire to see bipartisan collaboration on the health care issue. Can this same sense of collaboration be demonstrated on the issues of the economy and jobs as well?

The president's collaborative leadership style will need to extend beyond the political leadership in Washington. He must embrace the American people as well. Americans need to continue our role in the collaborative process by sending our elective representatives ideas and suggestions for solutions to these difficult issues. And the electorate must hold our officials to account for the way they (do or don't) handle these issues.

When faced with a crisis America has proven time and again that it can come together, set aside disagreements, and make a difference. The current challenges facing America are no different. In A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr's wrote about how Adlai Stevenson prepared the way for JFK by shifting the democratic party's motto from 'you never had it so good,' to 'stressing peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, purpose' (p.23). Obama has repeatedly stressed 'peril, uncertainty, sacrifice, and purpose.' I fear to many Americans have been distracted by current hardships to realize that the difficulties they face are part of the reshaping of America. Hansen points out in his commentary an uncertainty about the president's efforts to clearly establishing health care as his 'moon goal', to unite people and parties. If we realize that the world had fundamentally changed and that the hardships we currently face are part of restructuring society, we might find it a little easier to let go of political ideologies for the sake of making the fundamental change that the country needs—in the areas of health care, the economy, and jobs—to name a few.

References

Schlesinger, A. M. (2002). A thousand days: John F. Kennedy in the White House. Boston: Mariner Books. (Amazon)

Leaders Need Followers

New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key addressed Parliament yesterday. There have been mixed reactions to his speech. The PM had an opportunity to take some bold actions on tax reform that may have helped propel New Zealand forward. Mr Key had at his disposal recommendations from the Tax Working Group and the 2025 Taskforce. The Tax Working Group's recommendations included a rise in GST, a lowering of the top personal tax rate, and the introduction of a Capital Gains and Land Tax. The former were embraced and the latter deferred. Bob Buckle, Chair of the Tax Working Group, interpreted the PM's speech as a broad acceptance of the Groups framework for New Zealand's future tax system (Fallow, 2010). Other commentators, like Bernard Hickey, told Generation X and Y that the Prime Minister was effectivley telling them to leave the country (Hickey, 2010). I could go on about other reactions, but this has been well covered by the NZ Hearld and Stuff websites.  Instead, I want to focus on leaders and followers by comparing Prime Minister John Key's Statement to Parliament and President Barak Obama's State of the Union Address. This will not be a comprehensive review of the speeches themselves, but rather the circumstances that brought each leader to the delivery of these speeches.

President Barak Obama came to power in January 2009 riding a wave of change. His arrival was accompanied with chants of, "Yes we can!" and "Hope!" He entered Washington in the midst of unusual fervor and excitement. During his first year in office he tackled some big issues. He bailed out the banks; continued efforts to revitalize the economy through various stimulus packages; made efforts at reconciliation between America and the rest of the world; and jumped into the massive task of revamping the health care system. It took bold actions to wade into these issues.

In comparison, Prime Minister John Key's National Government focused on the economy, law and order, education, and health. The National Government has made some in-roads in these areas but they have done so carefully, so as not to rock the boat. National has received a fair amount of public support and has gained enough political capital to allow them to act boldly in the area of tax reform. But this opportunity may have been squandered. Resistance to the introduction of National Achievement Standards is rising in the education sector, and the PMs Statement to Parliament has received mixed reviews. The window for bold action is quickly closing. It appears that the PM is going to walk gently around tax reform. Why make waves when you can keep some ideas in your pocket for re-election?

Obama used his political capital and popularity in an effort to make a fundamental change to America's health care system. He did not communicate well the importance of health care change or paint a clear picture of what the future would look like if this change wasn't made. In his State of the Union, the President acknowledged that he understood that his focus on health care had cost him. But he re-stated his convictions and re-emphasized the importance of addressing the tough challenges and not leaving them for someone else. In contrast, Key has worked to maintain his popularity. It is obvious to some that being liked is more important than making the tough calls that are required to make fundamental changes to the way we live. Obama tried to lead boldly but it appears he did so with few followers. Key has stood in front of many potential followers and has lead them nowhere.

In both examples of leadership given here the follower has played a significant role. The American public made clear that they weren't happy about the direction the President was leading them, and in response he changed his behavior and refocused his message to address their concerns. But, just as he did in the campaign, he also reminded his followers that change wouldn't be easy and that he can't make the changes on his own. Followers need to be willing to sacrifice in order to make a difference.

On the other hand, Key brought with him to his speech many followers who were waiting to go boldly where they needed to go. There were those in this country who were ready to follow him and make the required sacrifices so that New Zealand could have a better future. Instead of a courageous leader, some found that they were following someone who would rather be remembered as a nice guy.

There is more history to be written about these two leaders. In the short term, those that follow them need to make some tough choices. We need bold leadership that will help us to re-think how the world is structured. But these leaders can't restructure the world if we aren't willing to follow them. Blind followership is not the answer. But neither is choosing not to follow at all. We need to be prepared to engage our leaders in the pursuit of solutions that address the unique challenges we currently face. America and New Zealand will repeat the same mistakes if we aren't able to tackle the fundamental issues that got us here in the first place. Our leaders are not going to take us where we need to go if we don't follow. As followers, we need to recognize where our leaders are trying to take us and act accordingly.