The demise of the Republican party?

March 31, 2013

Is the demise of the grand old party imminent?

Clearly most Republicans are concerned about their party's lack of success in recent national elections. In response, Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, commissioned a study to suggest changes for the future.

The resulting report titled, "The Growth and Opportunity Project", was produced by a small group of GOP insiders...you can tell by the clever initials! The report describes the changing world the party faces, and outlined logical conclusions and recommendations...but didn't go far enough in explaining how deep a hole the party has dug for itself.

While the report told Republican leaders the world has changed...they failed to explain it has changed forever. They also didn't warn strongly enough many current rigid partisan conservative platforms and positions are increasingly incapable of attracting enough votes to win national elections.

The report identified demographic changes and admits the party no longer appeals to most minority and younger voters. They also admit the Republican party is seen by non-party members as being for, by, and of older, wealthy, white Americans. (they didn't say wealthy, but I believe it's so) They state the GOP has failed to connect to Hispanics...one of the understatements of all time! They also know they have failed to appeal to gay Americans and younger women...wow! And, they admit many (which is most) Americans suffering economically have lost faith in the GOP leadership.

However, the study's suggested fixes seem to be mainly about doing whatever is needed to win future elections than actually changing values or beliefs. The closest they came to the latter was when they suggested somehow the GOP had to find a way to connect with voters who share most of the party's conservative values...if not all. Sort of sounds like a call for partial compromise to Independents doesn't it?

Clearly the GOP must come up with more inclusive messaging if it is to have a chance to return to national relevance in the near future. However, past positions speak much louder than new words to those whose votes they so desperately need. How does the GOP reverse course and connect with Hispanics when past messages have consistently called for illegals being removed from our country? Can the party convince gay Americans they actually now fully recognize their citizen's rights? How does the GOP convince the poorer Americans they no longer blame them for their own plight. How can the GOP convince the collapsing middle class they now recognize the damage caused by trickle-down economics favoring the wealthy...to the detriment of the majority of Americans. Clearly the Democrats are ahead on all of these issues.

Our growing national debt is now colliding with an exploding number of American families needing assistance. For the foreseeable future, unless a miracle happens, the many millions of Americans without decent jobs will increase, as will the even greater number living below the poverty level. Their safety net needs will be compounded by promised entitlements for 78 million baby boomers retiring over the next few decades. To make it even worse, most boomers have far too little saved, which will inevitably require additional government support. Does the GOP understand leaders from both parties will be forced to find cost-effective ways to prevent catastrophic conditions for many millions of Americans. Democrats long ago saw this future coming and their winning messages have increased their power. Many in the Republican party blame the Democrats for setting the stage for expected safety nets. However, it would be disingenuous for the GOP to deny culpability, because their party has been along for the entire ride to our current destination for several decades.

Can the GOP leadership convince current supporters to modify old beliefs because they won't gain sufficient voter support in our new reality? What good are passionately held GOP values if their supporters lack the numbers needed to elect national candidates?

Finally, the report also focused on the success of many Republican governors and suggests national candidates emulate their behaviors. It seems to me many Republican governors are guided by an understanding they are responsible for governing for all of their state's citizen's benefits...not just Republicans. Only when GOP candidates for federal offices can prove their actions will match any new messaging will they have a chance to regain the support needed to win elections.

Alternatively, the GOP could just stand pat and allow the game to come back to them as voters will eventually see the superior Democratic messages won't result in any tangible actions which will solve our nation's serious economic problems.

Neither party has done anything in the past few decades they should be proud of. Since the 1970s, they have collectively managed to transfer the wealth and future of the majority of Americans to the ultra-wealthy. Only by both parties taking joint actions can the course of the good ship America be reversed. Is it possible both sides are so driven to remain in power for power's sake they just can't consider joining forces to save our nation? Instead of working to solve problems for the benefit our citizens, they do so only for votes! Growth and Opportunity Project indeed! Seems pretty clear for whom the growth and opportunity is aimed...and it's not for the benefit of most Americans!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

Short term greed killing American jobs

March 17, 2013

Short-term management killing American jobs

We all know our nation is in deep financial trouble, and our political leaders seem unable to take any meaningful actions to repair the damage...or even slow down the bleeding. We also know our economy has not even come close to recovering.

No matter how the unemployment rate is spun...23 million Americans remain un or under-employed. This has resulted in nearly 50 million Americans living below the poverty level, and nearly all rely on food stamps and other government assistance to survive. to make matters worse, wages for the vast majority of Americans have been virtually stagnant for several decades. In spite of these clear side-effects of our failing economy, our nation continues borrowing nearly 40% of what it spends and faces a staggering $16 trillion national debt.

I have blamed powerful special interests, namely big businesses for using their lobbyists to influence lawmakers to ensure all laws favor their interests. I have also complained about politicians so easily allowing themselves to become prostituted by lobbyists. I even pointed the finger of blame at ourselves for blindly supporting one party over the other, or just dropping out of the voting process.

A recent article published in Forbes about a new study from Harvard has revealed another factor which should be added to our list of concerns. The studies authors are three highly respected Harvard professors, Michael Porter, Jan Rivkin, and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. They were motivated to do the study and publish their conclusions because, as Professor Porter explains, "there was a clear feeling that something different was happening in the U.S. economy...this was not just a deep recession caused by the housing mortgage crisis and so forth...something more was going on."

Part of their concerns was recognition the majority of jobs created over the last decade were mainly locally by employers such as, government, healthcare, retailing, and others not exposed to international competition. They said this was a sign U.S. businesses were losing the ability to compete internationally.

They decided to begin the study by surveying their own Harvard MBA alumni. Of the more than 6000 respondents, a third represented the senior leaders at the highest levels of a huge number of American businesses.

These leaders verified American companies were not competing effectively internationally. They...not surprisingly...overwhelmingly believed they were doing good jobs as leaders. They place all the blame on the government for restricting their ability to manage more effectively. The authors were actually shocked at their mass attitude of ducking responsibility, and even stated they wondered what had happened to the old American can-do attitude which used to prevail.

The authors agree government has played a restrictive role, but only in relatively minor ways. They believe the real reason for these highly educated leaders failure to compete internationally was caused by changes in corporate governance and compensation which began in the late 70s. Compensation plans were designed to increasingly reward management for accomplishing the short-term financial metrics expected to most positively and immediately affect stock prices. The management process thus became driven by cost reductions because it was much easier to manage than pursuing new customers...or even maintaining old ones.

Over the past four decades, managers have been increasingly rewarded for improving efficiencies and lowering costs instead of exploring new ideas about how to better serve customers. Not accidentally, this is the same exact time frame when the U.S. middle class began the decline which continues today. The authors go on to point out specific examples of U.S. companies and industries which missed out on technical changes and innovations which eventually put many out of business. Almost always because senior management was primarily pursuing short-term financial metrics.

I was very surprised to hear these three Harvard professors actually place the blame for this short-term management style on the curriculum being used by the best business schools...including their own Harvard.

Should we be surprised to learn even the best and brightest from the best schools would succumb so easily to managing primarily to meet short term goals? Didn't any of them care about long-term repercussions? Ask yourself...if you were one of these business leaders and you knew you would maximize your personal rewards based on the short-term financial performance of your business...what would you do? If employees were your highest cost item, how far would you go to reduce these costs? As the middle class has witnessed...pretty far indeed!

Another Harvard professor named Mihir Desai says, this type of compensation has now produced a giant financial incentives bubble for senior management which is inexorably pushing the U.S. economy into decline.

The authors said the most incredible realization they got from analyzing data collected was the fact "customer" was not mentioned a single time by any respondent!

Professor Rivkin summarized by saying, "the ability of firms in the U.S. to be competitive in the world economy and to support living standards in America is in doubt."

The authors believe the only hope is for the best business schools to change what they are teaching in order to get our nation's future leaders back on track toward focusing on the customer and doing everything possible to delight them through innovation and quality. What...no government fix? If you are still optimistic, please let me know what you are drinking...I want to join you.

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

Anger building in America

March 10, 2013

Do you feel the anger building in America?

My wife and I just returned from a long driving trip through the center of our nation. We drove quite a bit on non-Interstates, and passed through many small towns, until reaching central Texas where we stayed for a few weeks. Then on the return trip we drove along the Gulf Coast until swinging back North from Florida to return to this special place we call home. As we drove through many mainly rural areas, it was quite clear our fellow citizens are feeling much economic pain. Abandoned businesses dotted the downtown landscape of most small townsSmall. Homes seemed to be in general disrepair, and few new cars or trucks were evident.

Every person I engaged during this trip expressed similar feelings of anger and disappointment in the failed national leadership of both political parties. These Americans understand our nation is in deep financial trouble. They also recognize our leaders are either unable or unwilling to unite. Like most of you, they know how much worse their lives will become without drastic actions.

Along the way, with time to kill, I listened too much to politicians and TV news shows on satellite radio. The more I listened to their ridiculous rhetoric, the angrier I became.

Shame on so many TV Opinion/News "shows" for failing to ferret out the whole truth? I'm even coining a new word: "op-news" to describe them. These shows pander to their preferred audience to make money for their owners by doing everything possible to pitt the parties against each...instead of demanding they unite for the benefit of all Americans. Most national op-news shows seem so desperate for ratings and ad revenue they have forgotten what objective journalism and news reporting used to be about. Freedom of the press was founded on the principle of pursuing the truth...no matter the consequences. Most of these types of national op-news shows choose to ignore what these freedoms imply, and none of us should ever be deluded into thinking of them as "news" programs.                                                                   

How dare our elected leaders from both parties for failing to serve all Americans? How dare they instead allow themselves to be prostituted by the special interests? How dare they place power and party loyalty over the very survival of the American dream of freedom and opportunity for all? How dare they not unite to solve the obvious problems we face? It doesn’t take much genius to recognize we cannot continue to borrow and spend our future generation's money to live the life we prefer but can no longer afford. All of our elected know this inescapable truth...yet continuously turn their faces away in order to maintain power and control.

How dare the special interests and ultra-wealthy, who control every law, care so little about the rest of their fellow citizens or our nation's survival?

Divisive op-news TV shows, lobbyists for every special interest imaginable, and corrupted politicians form the deadly trifecta which has led our country to the brink of ruin.

As much as I blame this trifecta, the majority of blame belongs to the vast majority of us...We The People. Nearly half of all eligible voters in the last election didn't even bother. Those who did seemed more concerned about party loyalty than our nation's survival. The vast majority of us know something is terribly wrong. We also know we can't rely on our elected to fix the problems. Then our seniors provide our elected with another reason for frozen actions by screaming...don't touch my "entitlements".

Most American adults needs to ask themselves if they want to continue to be part of the problem or become part of the solution. If you are satisfied with the status quo, or simply too lazy to get involved, perhaps you should begin immediately to write letters/emails to your loved ones in future generations apologizing for your unwillingness to get off of your butt and fight for our nation's and their future. If preceding generations had acted as ours is today, the nation would have failed long ago.

For the rest of us, Tea Partiers, pro or anti gun, the 99%, pro or anti abortion, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, environmentalists, etc. We all need to stop pointing the finger of blame at each other. It's time to join together and re-focus our anger against both failing parties, divisive segments of media, and special interests. If we don't find solutions to our pending economic collapse...none of the other specific issues we might be passionate about will matter a single whit. Stand up again as American patriots and protest loudly and often...we aren't going to take it any more! It's simply not effective to blame and complain...it's time for We The People to get mad and act before it's too late!

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower

Thanks for visiting my blog. Please also take a few minutes and visit the blog of a good pal a fellow columnist:  Lee's Political Opinions,  and the website for an organization we co-created:  Citizens Against Politics As Usual

The American environment vs. the economy

March 3, 2013

My take on the environment

I have never shared my opinions regarding the environmental debate, and some readers have asked why. Considering I have taken on other controversial topics such as illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, Muslims, gun control, etc., it's certainly a fair question. I think the reason for not writing about this highly debated topic sooner is because it took me a long time to make up my mind about which side I could most logically support.

Whenever I see almost always passionate environmentalists discuss climate change, their arguments are usually quite compelling. After all, how can anyone ignore the explosive global expansion of burning fossil fuels without wondering if the exhaust might harm us and our planet. Over a long life though, I have been repeatedly reminded of the capacity for human greed to drive some individuals to inflame public debate for personal gain. Al Gore became wealthy touting climate change dangers. Ethanol, with government support, was invented by the corn and ethanol industries. It resulted in adding instead of reducing pollution, while increasing the wealth of both industries and their backers. The loser, of course, are consumers who now pay more to fuel their cars and for most food grain products. Solar energy corporate crooks lined up at the federal money trough to take advantage of environmentalist-driven concerns. It doesn't appear many in this latter industry have remained in business once the taxpayer supports expired.

I have also been fortunate to travel throughout the world (61 countries at last count), and have driven extensively through every state in America. My travels have helped me realize how massive our planet is and how tiny a footprint humans actually make. For example, close to 80% of the U.S. is virtually uninhabited.

Most environmentalists naturally use human time-frames like years, decades, and even centuries, in framing their arguments. They correctly say the world is warming, icecaps and glaciers are melting, and more frequent and severe droughts and forest fires are realities. However, little more than theoretical and anecdotal evidence connects these real events to human activities.

In general, environmentalists seem to purposefully ignore geologic time frames. The earth is billions of years old and evidence shows the planet has repeatedly had episodes of climate change during the millenniums. Each period of change was characterized by climate warming and cooling. Very few experts have argued biological life forms had any relationship to these cyclical changes. Heck, the last ice age (more accurately referred to as a glaciation period) only ended 10,000 or so years ago. It lasted tens of thousands of years. Some experts believe the recent global warming observations may simply show the ice age just hasn't finished ending.

It seems unlikely the many generations of humans who lived during the last ice age blamed themselves as they repeatedly relocated to warmer parts of the planet to survive? Perhaps they blamed it on some greater power we would call God. More likely, these ancient folks understood, better than modern environmentalists, human don't control the planet's weather...we only exist within it. Nature controls our planet's cycles of warming and cooling.

Many environmentalists also protest unsustainable human population growth as a plunderer of our planet's resources. Guess what....since these concerns were first theorized, our global population growth rates have begun to decline. Birth rate declines have resulted from ordinary people world-wide, knowing they can't afford large families, having greater access to birth control. Scientists are now expecting global population declines which will help reduce demands on our planet's resources...and shatter this argument.

We are now seeing increasing supplies of cleaner burning and less expensive natural gas replacing oil and coal consumption. We will continue to pursue and eventually develop truly cost-effective renewable sources of energy. Inevitably though, economics will guide these gains much more than environmental concerns.

Even if all Americans followed every suggestion to reduce our so-called carbon footprint, it would have little impact on reducing pollution compared to what is added by the much larger populations of China and India as they rapidly industrialize.

Humans with our short life spans shouldn't waste time, energy, and resources on perceived problems which we don't have a remote probability of controlling. Mother Earth will continue to cycle through warming and cooling cycles until the sun finally and naturally burns itself out. We humans have as much of a chance of impacting short-term climate change as we do stopping the certain life-ending death of our sun. Human egos amazingly allow many to believe we can change the global environment when we can't even accurately predict next week's weather!

Frankly, I wish environmentalist's would re-direct their anger and incredible passion against the greedy who capitalize on their fears to make money, and on behalf of the hundreds of millions in the world who go to bed hungry every night.

Finally, we should all demand our elected leaders unite to prevent the increasing likelihood of a global economic collapse. If and when such a collapse occurs, the last thing any of us will be worried about is climate change.

These are my opinions. What do you think?

Mike Tower