1. Why Didn’t Republicans Adjust and Win?

Today’s Ezine is the third of three. Under discussion is how Democrats appealed to Independent voters in order to win the 2008 Presidential election.

Starlight Theater in Kansas City puts on terrific Broadway plays. Bob Rolf, the Executive Director, always has a brief warm up for the crowd. One of those was a preemptive strike.

“This play is called The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas,” said Bob. “That means it has bawdy language and scantily clad people. If you are offended by bawdy language and scantily clad people, then please go to the box office now and we’ll happily give you a full refund. Don’t watch the whole play and then tell us you’re offended. Your refund request will not be honored.”

This tale is being told because a point is going to be made later by using a story that’s a bit crude. So, if you’re offended by stories that are a bit crude, you may want to stop reading. Please don’t continue to read and then write the editor to say you’re offended.

The first two columns in this series established the following points. Democrats did a better job in 2008 of persuading Independent moderate voters to vote for them rather than their competitors. Republicans helped Democrats by engaging in governing behavior sure to be upsetting to significant portions of Independent moderate voters. The question to be asked now, therefore, is this. Why did Republicans engage in such reckless (some might even say arrogant) behavior?

The simple answer is this. Republicans behaved with reckless arrogance because they thought they could. Republicans believed a slim but permanent majority had been created of voter groups who would vote for Republicans no matter what Republicans did or how they performed.

Included in those groups were the following.

• Social conservatives whose loyalty was based on the Republican approach to such issues as abortion and gay marriage. (88% of Evangelicals voted for Republicans, but only 46% of Catholics, sparking punitive actions by the Catholic Hierarchy.)

• Voters who disliked the idea of a dominant Democratic majority in control of both the Executive and Legislative branches enough to overlook incompetence to the point of malfeasance and criminal neglect in the act of governing.

In truth, the Republican theory came close to working. At least one source theorizes had just some 400,000 votes shifted in a few key states Senator McCain would be our President Elect by an Electoral College total of 273 electors, although he would have lost the popular vote.

Here is the crude story relating to this condition.

Some Army officer trainees were going through summer training. The pace of the training one particularly hot July day was such that the trainees drank their canteens dry and no time was available to refill the canteens. That night several of the trainees approached their Platoon Evaluator to complain about the situation. If they expected sympathy, they were disappointed.

The Evaluator, a blunt spoken man, rebuffed the trainees for their lack of initiative. “Why didn’t some of you gather up the canteens for everyone else, go get water and then get the notes later from the ones who stayed at the training? You know, I was in a pretty good mood until you guys showed up. Now I’m angry (he used other words besides “angry”). Let me tell you (expletives) something. You have to learn to stand up for yourself. If you let people crap on you, then you’re going to come out of this world brown.”

Here is how the philosophy of the Evaluator might be applied to voting choices in the last election (and offered here for your consideration).

Could it be those who voted for Republicans in the 2008 election (especially incumbent Republicans), despite their dismal record of governance, were letting Republicans crap on them? Weren’t they saying to Republicans, “Go ahead and crap on me. I don’t care and I won’t do anything about it.”? Isn’t this betraying their trust with voters who base their choice on demonstrated performance and attempt to hold elected officials accountable? Are they not similar to someone who stays in an abusive marriage, allowing their spouse to assault them physically, verbally and psychologically? At the least, shouldn’t they attempt to correct the behavior of their spouse?

Those who stay in abusive marriages may do so because they feel they have no options or they are unworthy of anything better. And clearly some voted Republican because they felt voting for Democrats was not a worthy option.

Surely American voters are worthy of something better than an electoral system forcing them to choose between the lesser of two evils. The time has come for a viable alternative to be created. That viable alternative already exists and is spreading across the country. It’s the topic for next week.

2. CEOs and Private Planes

I’ve been noting with interest this controversy about the auto industry executives who took their individual private planes to beg for loans from Congress. To me, this gives new meaning to the phrase “entitlement mentality.”

This situation reminds me of one of the sayings from the military—RHIP and RHIR-- Rank Has Its Privileges and Rank Has Its Responsibilities. What the saying means is there are benefits in being of a higher rank such as higher pay and prestige and the availability of more creature comforts. With those benefits, however comes the responsibility for accountability for what goes on in the organization. The commander is responsible for everything their organization does and fails to do.

Those who are the best leaders realize they are only as good as the people who work for them. In order to achieve their responsibilities, leaders must be sure not abuse their privileges. One of the surest ways to keep the people who work for you from reaching their potential is to abuse your own privileges. People are much more likely to go the extra mile in their own efforts if they see you as their leader sharing in their hardships. By the same token, the better the organization is doing on the RHIR part, the better the feeling people have about themselves and the more indulgent they are likely to be about the RHIP part.

These principles apply not just to the people in the organization, but also to the people observing the organization. This has been ably demonstrated this week.

I have the impression a lot of corporate leaders could use remedial training in these principles. Not all, to be sure. In fact, if you know of someone living the values, then please write and tell me about them. We could all use some good news.