Doing the Right Thing on Iraq - A Different Perspective

I had the opportunity last week to spend some time in DC with the Democratic House Caucus as they debated the Iraq Supplemental bill.  In fact, I was given the opportunity to speak to the Caucus for a few minutes.  Against the advice of several "consultants" who wanted me to just show up, be bland and ask for financial support, I couldn't let this golden chance slip by without giving them my take on the Iraq situation from a different angle.

Prior to running for Congress, I've spent my professional career in the business world, mostly helping start-ups and small growth companies to "get going" and become established.  While the US Government is clearly not a business entity, there are many similarities in the way the Government is run to the way large and small companies operate.

So, in the Caucus room I addressed one of the main criticisms coming from the other side of the aisle - that Congress is "micromanaging" the war.

I told our Dem Representatives that perhaps we should use the language of the free market so often used by Republicans and their corporate sponsors. The way I see it, Congress is the Board of Directors of the largest, most important enterprise in the history of the world - the United States of America - and the President is the CEO.  But he’s a weak CEO surrounded by a bad management team.  In these circumstances, there isn't a company worth it's salt in America where the Board should not step in to set strategic, and sometimes tactical, parameters.  In fact, in these circumstances, any Board has a fiduciary obligation, a responsibility, to its shareholders – in this case, every American citizen – to intervene with purpose, decisiveness and conviction to change the strategic course of the organization.  If we've learned anything from the recent corporate scandals at Enron, MCI, etc., it should be that while some of the scandals arose from bad people purposefully doing bad things, these corporate frauds were enabled largely because of ineffective Board oversight and unconscionable Board inaction.

In the business world, strong Board action in the face of a ineffective CEO/management team that is pursuing a rigid and ill-planned strategy isn’t micromanaging – its called good governance.  And, in my view, it‘s good politics.

I can tell you that the arguments I heard in the Dem House Caucus were by and large impassioned and heartfelt.  And leadership is working hard to come up with a solution.  But here in the west, after knocking on nearly 20,000 doors across Wyoming last year, I KNOW  that people want straight talk and a Representative who will stand up for his/her convictions.

This is Congress' chance to show the American people that they have the courage to hold others accountable, and that they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing regardless of political calculation.

•  Thanks, Gary

  I hope that your message resonated as much in DC as it does here.

  And that we have many more opportunities to hear your voice from Congress, starting in Jan. 09.

  by mcjoan on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

•  This is exactly

  what many people want:

  do the right thing regardless of political calculation.

  Even at the risk of not being relected.  The lure of power becomes so strong, that your point is forgotten by many who rationalize away their original ideals.

  You should save this diary so that after you are elected in 2008, you can pull out that statement and look at it, and remember to follow it regardless of electoral consequences.  I bet it actually is politically better to do so, but even if it is not, do it anyway, as best you can.

  by TomP on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:30:51 PM PDT

  •  I agree

    that "doing the right thing" regardless of political consequences is actually also good politics.  Too many professional politicians think they need to pander and/or sell out right away, instead of sticking to their beliefs and allowing their constituents to see what true representation looks like.

    by Gary from WY on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:23:13 AM PDT

•  Brilliant, Gary,

  but do you think any of it sunk in?

  by Crashing Vor on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:41:36 PM PDT

  •  I hope so

    Based on the number of Members who came up to me in DC in the couple of days after I spoke, I'm hopeful it actually did have an effect.

    I just hope they use the analogy to offset the bogus "micromanaging" charge

    by Gary from WY on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:24:57 AM PDT

•  The business/corporate metaphor

  ...for a Constitutional form of government seems slippery slope to me. One of Bush's talking points during the 2000 elections was that he was going to run the government like a business. They likened the whole endeavor to running  the country  like a corporation. Remember that?

  I wouldn't want to support that set of  memes and that kind of language, even if what you mean is quite different from what Bush meant (i.e. running the government like a division of Halliburton. )

  Maybe your idea works pragmatically in the sense that every American can understand and identify with it,  but I wonder if there's  not something of the soul of the Constitution that gets lost in such a translation.

  To paraphrase TomP's quote of Edwards: "We don't need to redefine the Constitution. We need to reclaim  the Consitution"

  by Duccio on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:49:37 PM PDT

  •  Ek F(*)#*ing Zactly Gary

    Totally agree with your analogy. I've even used it before.

    I really hope we start hearing dems repeating that one over and over.

    by CTMET on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:10:45 PM PDT

  •  I appreciate your concern

    and I agree with your sentiments - government is NOT a for-profit business and should not generally be run as such.  Of course, government is an organization just as business entities are organizations, and there are certainly some similarities and lessons to be learned from the private sector in running government.

    That said, I believe that running government for the public good is VERY different from running a for-profit corporation - for example, outsourcing public functions to private entities simply hasn't worked well - no accountability and different motivation (profit vs. public good).

    I just wanted to phrase the argument in terms the opposition uses and to highlight the bogusness (is that a word?) of the "micromanaging" claim.

    by Gary from WY on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:31:32 AM PDT

•  Obey quoted you last night or this morning in the

  debate, Gary.  I was so glad to hear what an impression you had made, you gave them a new vocabulary.  Let us know when you're ready to raise money for the next race.

  by walkabout on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 09:32:25 AM PDT

  •  That's a start...

    Thanks for letting me know about Obey - and I'll definitely be in touch if/when the time comes for financial support.

    by Gary from WY on Fri Mar 23, 2007 at 10:04:58 AM PDT