It shouldn't surprise anyone that Portland Oregon elected an openly gay mayor. to say the least we are pretty open and forgiving here as long as you aren't a conservative. the Portland community has always prided itself on being different and bucking the stereotypical social trends. But Portland is also a community of dichotomy. By that I mean that many of the things we do seem unrelated or juxtaposed on the surface. Most people don't look past that to see that this community simply thinks outside of the box. We don't hold to a particular ethos without waver but instead insure that it is qualified under a fairly unbiased review. This isn't a law town but more of a think outside of the box and hold no ideas back kind of town. That is why it should surprise no one that Sam Adams (not the beer) was elected as the Mayor of Portland a mere 100 (working days) ago.
Last January Portlanders were simply giddy about being a town that not only voted in a Black President but also voted in another openly gay Mayor. That pride was short lived however as within the first few weeks of his term he caught his first scandal. And it is a doosey.
Let's get this part out of the way. Sam was caught up in relationship with a (at the time) minor. The young man pursued Sam and Sam was happy to oblige by not only lying about his relationship but also making monstrously poor decisions about when, where, on who's time, and to whom he lied to about the relationship. It was a mid life crisis gone wonky! (Look up the details yourself at the Oregonians web page if you really need to know.) He lied to his friends, to other city counselmen, to the public and then to top it off he discredited anyone who had the nerve to try to run against him in the Mayoral race. I told you it was a doosey.
Portland however is beside itself with indecision. Do we throw out this great step forward for gay rights or do we live with the consequences of the election? Do we prop up a person who thought they could get away with it because he is gay and a good politician or do we set an example for our children and insure that the next candidate understands the standard to which we hold our public officials?
By all accounts Sam is a good public officail. He get's things done at city hall and works tirelessly on the programs he champions. Whether you agree with those programs or not you have to agree that he is good at his job.
The problem however is that this isn't business. It's not just a job and those who take up a public position are expected to conduct themselves in a manner befitting our ideals. Sam has not done that. This isn't Washington DC folks. We are never going to be ok with a Mayor that breaks the law and is caught with drugs and then get's re-elected. That type of thing just doesn't fly here. We expect our leaders to true leaders which is why when something of this nature comes up the whole country focusses in on it. (see Packwood, Sizemoore, and a few select others...)
Keep in mind this is how we get things done here in Portland. Back office deals (such as a city counsel that heavy handidly creates a law giving same sex couples the right to marriage) are an oddity and are always uncovered. (Thanks to the Portland Tribune, Wilimette Weekly, the Oregonian, and others...) Informed discent and discource is our bread and butter. You think Washington DC has people in the know just go to any coffee house in the metro area and you can strike up a lively debate about anything political. It's the only place I know of that a former pub owners ideas are given the same weight as a multi billion dollar shoe company exec. Portland is still (and god granted always will be) wierd enough to hear both arguments and make an informed choice.
However in Sam's case this is where we sometimes forget ourselves. We really want to be wierd enough to look past this mistake but if we do we give up our high standard of representation. Do you really want to have to tell your kids that this is the person they should look to as an example of how to act in public service? His opponents would say yes due to his tireless devotion to the city. His detractors of course would say no because they really don't want to have to tell their kids that this is the right way to be a public servant. I myself fall in the latter camp and for two reasons.
First his decsions show a total lack of respect for himself, his running mates, the city of Portland, his friends, and democracy. There is a double standard at the top. It isn't just a job to be good at but an example of the person we want to aspire to be. We didn't elect the backstabbing narsacistic politician who would risk his entire future on an underaged piece of tail. We voted for the city councilman who worked tirelessly to keep Portland wierd and who set an example for our kids. Sam, you are not that guy anymore. You should step down.
Second we cannot let our wishful thinking cloud our judgement about the Mayors office. I want it to be an example to the country that we fight fair and practice democracy as the founders of this great nation intended, through informed discourse. Whether you are liberal or conservative at least in Portland you get a fair hearing and that your actions do have consequences. My opinion is that Sam has done enough to certainly be one of our city counselmen but Mayor? No. Just being really good at it isn't enough. you have to be good at the job and be a good person too. Sam wasn't at that time and should take his medicine and make ammends by continuing on the city counsel.
Portland is wierd and great because we don't care whether you are gay, straight, muslim, jew, christian, black, white, red, yellow, or brown. We just want good people who accept the consequences of their actions and do the best they can. We are progressive not liberal and we will keep on the cutting edge through innovation and the acceptance of ideas that most would try to keep in a box. That's what makes us wierd and that's why we love it here.
TL Owens
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Myth of "Running It Like a Business"
The Myth of "Running It Like a Business"
Summary:
The phrase run it like a business is too often used to describe the way some people think the US government should be run. The fact is that there are vast differences between running a business and running a government. the phrase makes a great soundbite but is a woefully inadequate way to promote governmental fiscal responsibility.
We Hear it all the time and more from the right side of the aisle than the left; "the government needs to be run like a business", "I can't run my business like the government", "Why can't we run the government like a business?". In my younger days I would agree fully with the notion that business is a good model for fiscal responsibility in the government. After the eye opening spotlight that has been shed on the role of government in our economy recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to "run the Government like a business".
Let us start with the purpose of a Government and a Business. Our (US) government exists to enable its citizens to pursue their rights. Rights such as Life, Liberty and Happiness. Our founding fathers were very careful about this distinction. The Declaration of Independence is an amazing document. It is focused on the citizenry and defines the reason for a government to exist. That reason is not to make money. the US government from its infancy was created to protect the rights of the citizenry.
In opposition to this the sole purpose of a businesses is to make money. Some would argue this point as not being fulfilling or lacking depth of reason. Unfortunately, the one thing necessary to operate a business is income. You may like the work that comes with that chosen business but the fact remains that without income you have no business. Without income it is only work. If you are doing that work for someone else then it isn't business it is charity.
My point here is that while it is possible to practice fiscal responsibility when running a government that same fiscal responsibility cannot be a driving factor for the government. When that rationale or ideology takes over a government what we see is the erosion of what we in the US call our civil liberties. Or "unalienable rights" to quote the Declaration of Independence.
That is not to say that Fiscal Responsibility should be left out of government. It is necessary to the to achieve the goals of a government. If you can't run your government within the limits of available tax income then something needs to give. In the US this is a key debate being waged daily but based in two ideologies that are neither adequate to the goals of the state nor balanced by each other. Those ideologies being Liberalism and Conservative-ism.
This is also the reason why a two party system is so frustrating to many Americans. Many of us fall in the middle leaning to one side or another but hardly ever straddling both inexorably. As of late, I find that I am more apt to fall on the conservative side but with definite left leaning views on some subjects. For me making value based decisions is more justified than sticking to an ideology. Don't throw out conventional wisdom but put it in it's valued place in your decision making process. Our governmental decision making process is to debate. This at time exacerbates the ideological wars raging throughout the country but it's what makes us who we are.
So then, stating that the government should be run like a business is fully inadequate to the informed discourse needed to come to the best method for enabling the citizenry. The argument must contain both the methods for insuring fiscal responsibility and the limits to which the government should intrude upon the lives of it's citizens, in the form of taxes in this case.
One of the most valuable lessons I have learned from my father was the importance of truth. Not absolute truth but the strength to tell the truth even when it doesn't fit your impetus. I tend to call this transparency or the need for transparency in government. transparency insures that your decision making is held up before a higher, more populated audience. when decisons are made in back rooms it is necessary that those decisions be based not as much in ideology as in known fact. When they are made off the cuff they need to be defendable which most times they are not.
While not every decision the government makes needs to be scrutinized to the enth degree there are those that do. If a comittee makes a decision those hearing need to include as much informed discourse as is needed to reatain an arguable defense of the decision. I am afraid that most of the US citezenry does not believe or trust their elected officials enough to believe they are making their decisions based in informed discourse. The media portrays every argument given as a left or right argument instead of just an argument exacerbating the already dubious feelings the citizenry has towards their elected officials.
So then how do we handle this quandry of fact versus fantasy, of touchy feely versus hardlined minimalism, of guidance versus entitlement, and of conservative versus liberal. We tlak it out. We argue until the facts and best method of operation are found out. We Perry Mason it like old "Iron Sides" would have done. We make value based decison given the temperament of the public which we serve. I say we because everyone who votes serves the public interest and direct the conversation. That may be a bit optomistic but that doesn't bother me. Without hope and the willingness to disagree we wouldn't have a country that cotinually sets the standard for the way other operate. (yes, I'm a proud US citizen)
So please, the next time a politician says we need to run it like a business ask them which part of that business. Because frankly, if the government is a business it is the only one that CANNOT fail without the destruction of a country. So senator, congressman, or representative, do you feel we should let the governement fail if your "running it like a business" fails? I think not. Let's just use a combination of those best know management methods and transparency to create a lean and enableing government that will be the example for the rest of the world instead of just another failed business.
I'm still working the finer points of these arguments so if someone opposes this please let me know. Informed discourse is necessary to a democracy as well as a fulfilling intellectual life.
TL Owens
Summary:
The phrase run it like a business is too often used to describe the way some people think the US government should be run. The fact is that there are vast differences between running a business and running a government. the phrase makes a great soundbite but is a woefully inadequate way to promote governmental fiscal responsibility.
We Hear it all the time and more from the right side of the aisle than the left; "the government needs to be run like a business", "I can't run my business like the government", "Why can't we run the government like a business?". In my younger days I would agree fully with the notion that business is a good model for fiscal responsibility in the government. After the eye opening spotlight that has been shed on the role of government in our economy recently, I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to "run the Government like a business".
Let us start with the purpose of a Government and a Business. Our (US) government exists to enable its citizens to pursue their rights. Rights such as Life, Liberty and Happiness. Our founding fathers were very careful about this distinction. The Declaration of Independence is an amazing document. It is focused on the citizenry and defines the reason for a government to exist. That reason is not to make money. the US government from its infancy was created to protect the rights of the citizenry.
In opposition to this the sole purpose of a businesses is to make money. Some would argue this point as not being fulfilling or lacking depth of reason. Unfortunately, the one thing necessary to operate a business is income. You may like the work that comes with that chosen business but the fact remains that without income you have no business. Without income it is only work. If you are doing that work for someone else then it isn't business it is charity.
My point here is that while it is possible to practice fiscal responsibility when running a government that same fiscal responsibility cannot be a driving factor for the government. When that rationale or ideology takes over a government what we see is the erosion of what we in the US call our civil liberties. Or "unalienable rights" to quote the Declaration of Independence.
That is not to say that Fiscal Responsibility should be left out of government. It is necessary to the to achieve the goals of a government. If you can't run your government within the limits of available tax income then something needs to give. In the US this is a key debate being waged daily but based in two ideologies that are neither adequate to the goals of the state nor balanced by each other. Those ideologies being Liberalism and Conservative-ism.
This is also the reason why a two party system is so frustrating to many Americans. Many of us fall in the middle leaning to one side or another but hardly ever straddling both inexorably. As of late, I find that I am more apt to fall on the conservative side but with definite left leaning views on some subjects. For me making value based decisions is more justified than sticking to an ideology. Don't throw out conventional wisdom but put it in it's valued place in your decision making process. Our governmental decision making process is to debate. This at time exacerbates the ideological wars raging throughout the country but it's what makes us who we are.
So then, stating that the government should be run like a business is fully inadequate to the informed discourse needed to come to the best method for enabling the citizenry. The argument must contain both the methods for insuring fiscal responsibility and the limits to which the government should intrude upon the lives of it's citizens, in the form of taxes in this case.
One of the most valuable lessons I have learned from my father was the importance of truth. Not absolute truth but the strength to tell the truth even when it doesn't fit your impetus. I tend to call this transparency or the need for transparency in government. transparency insures that your decision making is held up before a higher, more populated audience. when decisons are made in back rooms it is necessary that those decisions be based not as much in ideology as in known fact. When they are made off the cuff they need to be defendable which most times they are not.
While not every decision the government makes needs to be scrutinized to the enth degree there are those that do. If a comittee makes a decision those hearing need to include as much informed discourse as is needed to reatain an arguable defense of the decision. I am afraid that most of the US citezenry does not believe or trust their elected officials enough to believe they are making their decisions based in informed discourse. The media portrays every argument given as a left or right argument instead of just an argument exacerbating the already dubious feelings the citizenry has towards their elected officials.
So then how do we handle this quandry of fact versus fantasy, of touchy feely versus hardlined minimalism, of guidance versus entitlement, and of conservative versus liberal. We tlak it out. We argue until the facts and best method of operation are found out. We Perry Mason it like old "Iron Sides" would have done. We make value based decison given the temperament of the public which we serve. I say we because everyone who votes serves the public interest and direct the conversation. That may be a bit optomistic but that doesn't bother me. Without hope and the willingness to disagree we wouldn't have a country that cotinually sets the standard for the way other operate. (yes, I'm a proud US citizen)
So please, the next time a politician says we need to run it like a business ask them which part of that business. Because frankly, if the government is a business it is the only one that CANNOT fail without the destruction of a country. So senator, congressman, or representative, do you feel we should let the governement fail if your "running it like a business" fails? I think not. Let's just use a combination of those best know management methods and transparency to create a lean and enableing government that will be the example for the rest of the world instead of just another failed business.
I'm still working the finer points of these arguments so if someone opposes this please let me know. Informed discourse is necessary to a democracy as well as a fulfilling intellectual life.
TL Owens
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)