Thursday, December 04, 2008
Political Mayhem Thursday: The Dangers of the Eleventh Commandment
Ronald Reagan was right about many things. However, he was wrong in repeating what he called The Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”
The problem with this Eleventh Commandment is that it puts loyalty to party before loyalty to country and loyalty to principle. There are times that principle and patriotism require that we criticize the rash and wrong actions of our government, even when it is in the hands of the party we support. There have been many of those moments over the past eight years as President George W. Bush has abandoned conservative principles in favor of political expediency. The slavish devotion of many Republicans to this Eleventh Commandment over those eight years, as they have defended Bush even as he abandoned them, has kept them silent. The result has been a Democratic Party sweep as the Republican Party lost its moral center.
When terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in 2001, there were many possible responses. One, for example, might have been to improve the anti-terror measures we already had, which had nearly flagged the scheme, but failed to due so because of inattentive monitoring and an inefficient FBI bureaucracy. However, the President chose instead to create a huge new bureaucracy (the Department of Homeland Security), with an ever-expanding budget, a vague set of goals, and a primary mission, it seemed, of spending money and inconveniencing citizens. Nothing about this was conservative, but conservative voices dared not challenge the President. Those people who best knew that bloated government was not the right answer silently joined the rest of us in line as we entered the airport barefoot and humbled.
It also wasn’t conservative to appoint unqualified people to oversee agencies such as FEMA, but after the Katrina disaster, most conservatives spent their energies criticizing the media that dared to report the story of government incompetence.
Finally, the Bush Administration handed hundreds of billions of dollars out to the richest amongst us in an unsuccessful attempt to stem the economic crisis. Too many conservatives simply mumbled that “something had to be done,” as if when “something” needs to be done, that something should always be extravagant government spending.
When we choose our political party over our beliefs or our country, it is a mistake. John McCain ran under the slogan “Country First,” which in a way was a challenge to his own party to change the way that they do business. It is a challenge that should be taken up by both parties, who share that weakness. Now that Democrats are in power, they need to remember this lesson and demand of their leaders that they do what is consistent with their principles, rather than that which seems more likely to keep them in power. Dissent within a party is powerful, in that it comes from those with the most influence on leaders.
The Eleventh Commandment is bad for Republicans, bad for Democrats, and bad for America. Now that Republicans have paid the price for holding their tongues, I hope that Democrats won’t replicate their mistakes and put political party before all else.
Comments:
<< Home
I don't see Obama letting this happen, at least I HOPE he will not let it happen. his cabinet is filled with all kinds of people and I think Job 1 for him will be to DUCK so he does not get hit with flying debris....
Hey, I had one of those buttons. I bought it at the GOP convention in Detroit back in 1980, along with one that said "Kennedy for Lifeguard". Yes, I was once a died in the wool, lock-step Republican, now I vote for the person I feel is best suited to lead based on current world circumstances.
I am all for smaller, smarter government but given our current economic circumstances it is going to take money to dig out of the hole. The 11th Comandment has led this country into it's unbridled greed and spending spree (nationally and individually).
There is a whole generation of 20-25 years olds that have been never experienced failure or been denied their wants. I grew up in a house where we didn't keep up with the Jone's, Smith's or Osler's. If something was a NEED it was taken care of. If something was a WANT, it was evaluated over time for its benefits. We learned to distinguish between the 2 and that makes economic down turns much easier to swallow.
There are many who are criticizing Obama on his Cabinet and staff selections. Too many former Clinton people. Well to me, common sense says that the 'under' position folks from the Clinton era Whitehouse are the next generation of appointees. I trust they are being 'vetted' (I don't like this term) extensively and I haven't seen the President-elect make rash decisions. So far he has a real mix of people and personalities and I don't think they will all march in lock step, they will challenge and question. This is what Obama has said he wants. He does not want people to say "Your idea is the best Mr. President, now we will implement it." He wants people (I think) to give him many options on getting from point A to point B.
Enough ranting, I need to drink my coffee.
I am all for smaller, smarter government but given our current economic circumstances it is going to take money to dig out of the hole. The 11th Comandment has led this country into it's unbridled greed and spending spree (nationally and individually).
There is a whole generation of 20-25 years olds that have been never experienced failure or been denied their wants. I grew up in a house where we didn't keep up with the Jone's, Smith's or Osler's. If something was a NEED it was taken care of. If something was a WANT, it was evaluated over time for its benefits. We learned to distinguish between the 2 and that makes economic down turns much easier to swallow.
There are many who are criticizing Obama on his Cabinet and staff selections. Too many former Clinton people. Well to me, common sense says that the 'under' position folks from the Clinton era Whitehouse are the next generation of appointees. I trust they are being 'vetted' (I don't like this term) extensively and I haven't seen the President-elect make rash decisions. So far he has a real mix of people and personalities and I don't think they will all march in lock step, they will challenge and question. This is what Obama has said he wants. He does not want people to say "Your idea is the best Mr. President, now we will implement it." He wants people (I think) to give him many options on getting from point A to point B.
Enough ranting, I need to drink my coffee.
Christine--
From what I remember, "keeping up with the Oslers" was pretty easy to do. You know, probably, that they put that "Slow Children" sign up at the foot of Colonial right after we moved in...
From what I remember, "keeping up with the Oslers" was pretty easy to do. You know, probably, that they put that "Slow Children" sign up at the foot of Colonial right after we moved in...
I agree that principles matter more than parties. It's just so rare to have a public official who truly puts our country before his or her party.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find another George Washington?
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could find another George Washington?
I forgot about the microbuses. I think it was to haul all that supposed hockey gear around or perhaps the entire Shores swim team.
Come to think of it, you may have been the only family in GP that didn't drive a Big 3 car?
Come to think of it, you may have been the only family in GP that didn't drive a Big 3 car?
I am brain dead. I have been in a totally chaotic meeting all day, one of those where everybody is trying to figure everybody else out (and some of it was in French). But it's nothing compared to the meetings our government officials will have to attend . . . I hope they are up for a no-sleep, complex four (or eight) years!
Sorry that probably made no sense . . . good post today . . .
Sorry that probably made no sense . . . good post today . . .
# posted by 
: 5:53 PM
: 5:53 PM
It's not unique to political groups. It's a fact of human sociology in general that membership in a group constitutes a tacit assumption to defend that group. We all do it: I get defensive when someone talks bad about Texas, my family or even Baylor, but I still criticize all three myself. The social pressure, the ingrained need to define one by social context is too great for anyone to resist.
We consider "loyalty" to be one of the highest virtues. Patriotism is something we value. We make school children pledge allegiance to the government. These are all illustrations of this kind of value system. The 11th Commandment is just a formalization of a behavior we all do.
That's why McCain's "Country First" slogan wore thin. It was just a slogan, no more meaningful than anything invovling can, hope or change. It's meant to symbolize something people think they want but will never act upon. When the chips are down, we dig in and form up ranks.
So will the Democrats engage in party politics? Absolutely. Will the Republicans do it, even after the unmitigated disaster of the past 8 years? Yes. Will I (as well as many others) engage in casuistry and defense of our chosen causes out of loyalty? Yes.
What do we do? I think it takes a conscious act of intention to work against this urge. I think we have to mentally make ourselves be critical of "our" groups. I think we have to 'fess up when we're wrong, and have the maturity and character to realize that being in error isn't wrong, but being in error and refusing to change is.
We consider "loyalty" to be one of the highest virtues. Patriotism is something we value. We make school children pledge allegiance to the government. These are all illustrations of this kind of value system. The 11th Commandment is just a formalization of a behavior we all do.
That's why McCain's "Country First" slogan wore thin. It was just a slogan, no more meaningful than anything invovling can, hope or change. It's meant to symbolize something people think they want but will never act upon. When the chips are down, we dig in and form up ranks.
So will the Democrats engage in party politics? Absolutely. Will the Republicans do it, even after the unmitigated disaster of the past 8 years? Yes. Will I (as well as many others) engage in casuistry and defense of our chosen causes out of loyalty? Yes.
What do we do? I think it takes a conscious act of intention to work against this urge. I think we have to mentally make ourselves be critical of "our" groups. I think we have to 'fess up when we're wrong, and have the maturity and character to realize that being in error isn't wrong, but being in error and refusing to change is.
I had a lot of thoughts about this post, but I didn't have the energy to write them all down. Some highlights:
1. I think the 11th Amendment has to be placed in historical context. It came out of the internal battle between traditional Republicans and the Goldwater conservative movement following the 1964 election. It was important at that time for Republicans to quit eating their own in order to have any chance at gaining national prominence. I don't think Reagan was advocating abandoning intellectual questioning of conservative dogma or policies, just pointing out that having such fights publicly amongst the party leadership (i.e. - on the convention floor) isn't good for the party. About that he was 100% right (yet again proving that Reagan was right about everything).
2. Immigration policy, No Child Left Behind, Harriet Miers, the prescription drug benefit, McCain-Feingold - the list could go on, but these are all issues where there was serious and active debate amongst conservatives about Bush policies and even very open disagreement about Bush policies in the last eight years. The National Review spent basically an entire 6 month period railing against Bush on immigration, and I would be hard pressed to think of a more pro-Bush serious publication.
3. I agree with Lane. Completely.
4. However, I find it funny that a self-described democratic socialist spent 5 paragraphs arguing about human nature.
1. I think the 11th Amendment has to be placed in historical context. It came out of the internal battle between traditional Republicans and the Goldwater conservative movement following the 1964 election. It was important at that time for Republicans to quit eating their own in order to have any chance at gaining national prominence. I don't think Reagan was advocating abandoning intellectual questioning of conservative dogma or policies, just pointing out that having such fights publicly amongst the party leadership (i.e. - on the convention floor) isn't good for the party. About that he was 100% right (yet again proving that Reagan was right about everything).
2. Immigration policy, No Child Left Behind, Harriet Miers, the prescription drug benefit, McCain-Feingold - the list could go on, but these are all issues where there was serious and active debate amongst conservatives about Bush policies and even very open disagreement about Bush policies in the last eight years. The National Review spent basically an entire 6 month period railing against Bush on immigration, and I would be hard pressed to think of a more pro-Bush serious publication.
3. I agree with Lane. Completely.
4. However, I find it funny that a self-described democratic socialist spent 5 paragraphs arguing about human nature.
# posted by : 8:10 PM
: 8:10 PM
Beautifully said, Mark. It has been sad to see the proud party that once embraced the Rockefellers, Eisenhowers and Doles reduced to Sara Palin and James Dobson.
I feel hopeful about the future for the first time in nearly a decade.
RFDIII
I feel hopeful about the future for the first time in nearly a decade.
RFDIII
# posted by : 8:18 PM
: 8:18 PM
Lane and RRL you make perfect sense. Swissgirl - mental fatigue is understood and is best served with a nice dinner, at least one glass of decent wine and some good music of your own choosing.
Can we have lighter topic this weekend and share holiday cookie recipes?
Can we have lighter topic this weekend and share holiday cookie recipes?
RE your second point, RRL, while the conservative media--those outside the Bush administration--may have criticized Bush soundly and freely, I think Osler's point concerns people within his own administration, which is another matter: they either were so loyal it wouldn't have occurred to them to criticize him, or those who did were made to pay for it in some way, or just got fed up and left.
There was a budget guy who accurately projected the cost of the war who was ousted; can't remember his name . . .
There was a budget guy who accurately projected the cost of the war who was ousted; can't remember his name . . .
# posted by : 8:21 PM
: 8:21 PM
I think a big part of the reason the 11th commandment doesn't work or apply these days is because the line between hard-line democrats and hard-line republicans is growing smaller and smaller. It seems that more people, legislators included, are leaning centrist than ever, and fewer and fewer individuals identify themselves solely by party label. Couple that with scandals left and right, and it will soon become much easier to criticize one's own party without fear of retribution from party leaders or influential players.
Swissgirl - it seems to me reading Osler's post that he is referencing conservatives as a group, not just within the Bush administration. For example:
"There have been many of those moments over the past eight years as President George W. Bush has abandoned conservative principles in favor of political expediency. The slavish devotion of many Republicans to this Eleventh Commandment over those eight years, as they have defended Bush even as he abandoned them, has kept them silent."
The use of the term "many Republicans" seems to imply that Osler's comments are meant to apply generally to Republicans.
Whatever, it doesn't matter, because if the point is that Bush demanded loyalty (at least publicly) from those within his administration then that is nothing new. What do you expect would happen if Hillary comes out and publicly states that she disagrees with Obama on a foreign policy decision? Her job is to implement the policies of the President. If she publicly states a disagreement with him then how can she effectively do that.
Questioning, at least publicly, can't come from within the administration, because signs of internal disagreement would weaken the president in dealing with congress, the public, foreign leaders, etc. Questioning must come from outside the administration, at least publicly, and in that area I just think the criticism of conservatives in regards to the Bush administration is a bit misplaced.
"There have been many of those moments over the past eight years as President George W. Bush has abandoned conservative principles in favor of political expediency. The slavish devotion of many Republicans to this Eleventh Commandment over those eight years, as they have defended Bush even as he abandoned them, has kept them silent."
The use of the term "many Republicans" seems to imply that Osler's comments are meant to apply generally to Republicans.
Whatever, it doesn't matter, because if the point is that Bush demanded loyalty (at least publicly) from those within his administration then that is nothing new. What do you expect would happen if Hillary comes out and publicly states that she disagrees with Obama on a foreign policy decision? Her job is to implement the policies of the President. If she publicly states a disagreement with him then how can she effectively do that.
Questioning, at least publicly, can't come from within the administration, because signs of internal disagreement would weaken the president in dealing with congress, the public, foreign leaders, etc. Questioning must come from outside the administration, at least publicly, and in that area I just think the criticism of conservatives in regards to the Bush administration is a bit misplaced.
# posted by : 8:55 PM
: 8:55 PM
RRL -- I'm not talking about human nature, but rather human sociology. We're brought up this way. I'd argue that in a different form of society where we didn't define things in binary, us-them terms, we wouldn't see this behavior, at least not this degree.
In the ideal world, no one would be brought up to think with an "us versus them" mentality. But our parents were, so we are, just as their parents were, and so forth back until the time when we first started organizing into tribes to pool resources.
In the ideal world, no one would be brought up to think with an "us versus them" mentality. But our parents were, so we are, just as their parents were, and so forth back until the time when we first started organizing into tribes to pool resources.
Thanks, Christine . . . yes, my second post was after dinner and at least one glass of wine!
RRL, yes you bring up an interesting point about a cabinet member publicly disagreeing with the president. I suppose you're right, that ideally such disagreement shouldn't be made publicly--I mean, I wouldn't make a point of criticizing my head-of-school in front of the whole faculty, if at all possible, and I doubt if any of us would do that with our bosses. It's just human decency.
But Obama seems to be putting in place some people who are very strong personalities and have very defined points of view which may not be identical to his--or are in areas he may not know as much about-- so it's inevitable there may be some public disagreements. I suppose it's a matter of how those disagreements are handled and tolerated that makes a difference, and whether employees feel they can express a dissenting opinion, especially outside the public eye, without getting fired.
I mean, we all want that in our jobs, don't we? I have been much happier in jobs where I was free to disagree in a meeting, maybe bordering on embarrassing myself I daresay, than in jobs where my boss demanded absolute obedience and slavish loyalty, and I'm not exaggerating. Working in an environment like that is horrible, and unproductive for everybody involved.
RRL, yes you bring up an interesting point about a cabinet member publicly disagreeing with the president. I suppose you're right, that ideally such disagreement shouldn't be made publicly--I mean, I wouldn't make a point of criticizing my head-of-school in front of the whole faculty, if at all possible, and I doubt if any of us would do that with our bosses. It's just human decency.
But Obama seems to be putting in place some people who are very strong personalities and have very defined points of view which may not be identical to his--or are in areas he may not know as much about-- so it's inevitable there may be some public disagreements. I suppose it's a matter of how those disagreements are handled and tolerated that makes a difference, and whether employees feel they can express a dissenting opinion, especially outside the public eye, without getting fired.
I mean, we all want that in our jobs, don't we? I have been much happier in jobs where I was free to disagree in a meeting, maybe bordering on embarrassing myself I daresay, than in jobs where my boss demanded absolute obedience and slavish loyalty, and I'm not exaggerating. Working in an environment like that is horrible, and unproductive for everybody involved.
# posted by : 10:21 PM
: 10:21 PM
RRL said most of what I wanted to say.
Cabinet Level Officers who disagree with the President publicly should be kicked to the curb quickly. Lincoln did it to Salmon Chase, for instance. FDR got rid of John Nance Garner as VP because of his public disagreement with the Boss and he forced out lots of other Cabinet Secretaries along the way too. LBJ got rid of several Cabinet Secretaries who expressed disagreement with him. So did Jimmy Carter. Joe Califano and Warren Vance spring to mind immediately.
And some people may recall the 2004 VP debate where the moderator asked Cheney about his views on Gay Rights in light of his gay daughter. He gave the perfect answer, something along the lines of:I disagree with the President, but he's the boss and therefore I support his policies.
Reagan himself criticized Republican policies. RRL is correct in that Reagan knew he had to hold together a coalition. The strategic purpose of the 11th Commandment was to make Reagan look like "The Leader." The idea was that you could criticize policy, but not the person. And that makes sense. Keep your focus on ideas, not personalities.
The Obama team CLEARLY follows the 11th Commandment. Talk about a tight lipped bunch! These press conferences have been weird. He brings all these people out to be introduced. and they stand there and don't say anything. Richardson was the first one who got to talk.
But that's good management. He's the boss.
Cabinet Level Officers who disagree with the President publicly should be kicked to the curb quickly. Lincoln did it to Salmon Chase, for instance. FDR got rid of John Nance Garner as VP because of his public disagreement with the Boss and he forced out lots of other Cabinet Secretaries along the way too. LBJ got rid of several Cabinet Secretaries who expressed disagreement with him. So did Jimmy Carter. Joe Califano and Warren Vance spring to mind immediately.
And some people may recall the 2004 VP debate where the moderator asked Cheney about his views on Gay Rights in light of his gay daughter. He gave the perfect answer, something along the lines of:I disagree with the President, but he's the boss and therefore I support his policies.
Reagan himself criticized Republican policies. RRL is correct in that Reagan knew he had to hold together a coalition. The strategic purpose of the 11th Commandment was to make Reagan look like "The Leader." The idea was that you could criticize policy, but not the person. And that makes sense. Keep your focus on ideas, not personalities.
The Obama team CLEARLY follows the 11th Commandment. Talk about a tight lipped bunch! These press conferences have been weird. He brings all these people out to be introduced. and they stand there and don't say anything. Richardson was the first one who got to talk.
But that's good management. He's the boss.
# posted by : 12:46 AM
: 12:46 AM
I agree that Obama has run a very tight ship and public disagreements should not be tolerated, BUT...
Obama has stated he wants to have discussion and debate on policies within his administration. In the end the decisions are his, but he wants to get to the decisions (or states he wants)through thought provoking discussions. Whether he can do it remains to be seen.
Post a Comment
Obama has stated he wants to have discussion and debate on policies within his administration. In the end the decisions are his, but he wants to get to the decisions (or states he wants)through thought provoking discussions. Whether he can do it remains to be seen.
<< Home
