A Crucial Element of Democracy

This is a blog by Robert Gutierrez ...
While often taken for granted, civics education plays a crucial role in a democracy like ours. This Blog is dedicated to enticing its readers into taking an active role in the formulation of the civics curriculum found in their local schools. In order to do this, the Blog is offering a newer way to look at civics education, a newer construct - liberated federalism or federation theory. Daniel Elazar defines federalism as "the mode of political organization that unites separate polities within an overarching political system by distributing power among general and constituent governments in a manner designed to protect the existence and authority of both." It depends on its citizens acting in certain ways which Elazar calls federalism's processes. Federation theory, as applied to civics curriculum, has a set of aims. They are:
*Teach a view of government as a supra federated institution of society in which collective interests of the commonwealth are protected and advanced.
*Teach the philosophical basis of government's role as guardian of the grand partnership of citizens at both levels of individuals and associations of political and social intercourse.
*Convey the need of government to engender levels of support promoting a general sense of obligation and duty toward agreed upon goals and processes aimed at advancing the common betterment.
*Establish and justify a political morality which includes a process to assess whether that morality meets the needs of changing times while holding true to federalist values.
*Emphasize the integrity of the individual both in terms of liberty and equity in which each citizen is a member of a compacted arrangement and whose role is legally, politically, and socially congruent with the spirit of the Bill of Rights.
*Find a balance between a respect for national expertise and an encouragement of local, unsophisticated participation in policy decision-making and implementation.
Your input, as to the content of this Blog, is encouraged through this Blog directly or the Blog's email address: gravitascivics@gmail.com .
NOTE: This blog has led to the publication of a book. The title of that book is TOWARD A FEDERATED NATION: IMPLEMENTING NATIONAL CIVICS STANDARDS and it is available through Amazon in both ebook and paperback versions.

Friday, October 21, 2016

HOW WAS THE CHICKEN?

Last night, at the Al Smith Dinner in New York, there were the two candidates for president at what traditionally has been a chance for such candidates to display their more humorous sides.  It is a competition between which side can muster up better joke writers.  It is to be a light-hearted evening.  Both candidates last night acted as if they had not gotten the memo as to the purpose of the gathering, although both admitted that they had been to prior Al Smith Dinners.
          One of the two candidates, although he began his remarks in the intended spirit, devolved into the same strident tone he exhibited in the last debate, just the night before, between the two.  The other sustained a more jovial presentation but did push her candidacy, which was not the purpose.
The usual tenor at this event is to be self-deprecating and to needle the other candidate with good natured quips.  Last night, one candidate, in trying to be self-deprecating, was more deprecating of his wife.  The other did make certain self-deprecating remarks, but nothing too profound.  She made, for example, a reference to her “deplorable” comment of some weeks ago, a comment she indicated was unfortunate.
          In short, he, Donald Trump, and she, Hillary Clinton, were worth seeing, but they did not exemplify what a “good” Al Smith Dinner is supposed to be.  For that, see the Obama-McCain or the Obama-Romney version – they were just right.  But what was more revealing last night were the opposing leadership styles each candidate exhibited.  In that, they demonstrated clashing approaches of leadership.
          The Republican candidate provides an example of the charismatic style for those who follow him and the Democratic candidate more of the low profile, humble appearing style.  I write “appearing” because in both cases, one is dealing with individuals who have had celebrity status for a long time.  As such, they have had ample opportunity to craft a style they want to portray to the public.
Therefore, one cannot be sure in either case whether what one sees is what one will get.  A person would have had to work for one of these candidates to know how he/she is when the pressure builds.  What does each fall back on when the pressure is on?  This is important because the job they are after will have a boat load of pressure.
          Let’s suppose that what one sees is what one will get come January 20th.  Based on those appearances, which is best:  a charismatic leader or a low profile, “humble” leader?  According to Michael A. Roberto,[1] there seems to be some disagreement between two gurus of organizational theory and research.  There are Jim Collins[2] and Thomas J. Peters who propose somewhat opposing opinions on this score.
          Collins sides with the low profile, humble approach.  Peters does not so much favor the charismatic approach as he prefers matching the leader and his/her dispositions to the demands of the organization at a given time.
Roberto gives the example of Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City (he was at the dinner last night scowling at Clinton and her unflattering reference to him).  When Giuliani took office, the city was suffering from high crime rates and other ailments.  He “righted the ship” and consequently enjoyed high approval ratings.  He was easily reelected.
          Then there was his second term and he tried to impose more “conservative” policies – policies that many believed were detrimental to minority populations – and his popularity plummeted.  But all that changed with the 9/11 attacks where he took charge, was highly visible and relatively transparent.  He again upped his approval ratings and left office on a high note.
          Giuliani’s example is good in that it demonstrates how, based on one person’s experience, a single personality is good in certain situations and not so good in others.  Apparently, Giuliani was good when things were extremely demanding, but lacking when things were moving along more normally.  As such, his tale seems to support Peters’ argument.
What is wrong with the Giuliani example is that it reflects a very unusual set of circumstances.  Most leaders will not be called upon to handle such extreme conditions.  So, the mayor’s effectiveness seemed to spike when the city was experiencing very difficult challenges.
          On the other hand, Collin’s argument is derived from his study about how various business enterprises that were doing poorly to mediocrely were transformed to becoming top profit-making entities – “good to great.”  In terms of leadership, he found that these companies were led by low profile, humble leaders.  These were not companies that at the time were facing drastic futures; they were not about to go bankrupt.  So, their conditions were not so imminently catastrophic.
          These more “normal” situations seem to relate to what Giuliani faced during most of his second term.  Yes, there were challenges, but established, on-going processes and policies were able to meet the demands of the day.  They could stand to improve, but that process of improvement could be more deliberate and thought out.
Although it should be pointed out that one reason Giuliani was so successful during the 9/11 attacks is that, based on an earlier attack on the World Trade Center, he had instituted appropriate planning and training to meet the challenges of another attack.  He personally supervised these efforts as they were given high priority.
          There is more that goes into successful leadership than personality traits; good sense, knowledge, temperament (which is more than just how flamboyant one is), and a host of other traits. 
I will also add that both Collins and Peters write about leaders who implement, if needed, and sustain more horizontal organizational structures where collaboration and delegation are featured.  Both write of how important it is to have a workforce that feels a sense of being federated among its members – these writers might use other language to describe this, but this is part of their message.
So, the question is, in the upcoming years, how drastic the needs will be and which of these candidates has the personality and other traits for which the place and times are calling.  I know the nation is suffering from certain problems; I’ve written about them in this blog.
But I think you would agree that they are not of the catastrophic type.  The nation is moving toward a more secure economy and there are no immediate threats from any foreign enemy.  Our biggest threat is that of terrorists and any attack from them will have limited effects.  This is serious but does not pose an existential threat.



[1] Michael A. Roberto, Transformational Leadership:  How Leaders Change Teams, Companies, and Organizations, (Chantilly, VA:  The Great Courses/The Teaching Company, 2011).

[2] Jim Collins, Good to Great:  Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others Don't, (New York, NY:  HarperCollins Publishers, Inc, .2001). 

No comments:

Post a Comment