When did elections become American Idol?

Full disclosure: I love to watch debates - academic or political. I love the give and take. I watched every presidential primary debate this season. (The British call it the silly season with good reason.) I've watched both debates now between the candidates and will be glued to the last two. (Update: the second presidential debate does not change what I've already posted.)

I'm NOT looking for winners and losers. I'm looking for information. I'm not one of those over-hyped "undecided voters." I've made a choice and I don't think a debate will change my mind so I'll take advantage of my state's early voting. However, and this is a big "however," I still want to understand each candidate and party's ideas, desires, plans, history, and more. I never get tired of it. Sometimes I agree with my chosen candidate and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I like what he or she says and sometimes I don't. Sometimes I support their compromises and sometimes I don't. I'm not a single-issue voter, and since I cast my first presidential vote in the 60s, I've tried to look at the full package.

So what? I was watching some "news" coverage after the vice presidential debate and they were discussing what was trending on social media during the debate...DURING the debate.

• We are NOT WIRED TO MULTITASK. When we're listening/watching the debate and start texting, tweeting or facebooking, our brain is simply switching back and forth very, very rapidly (below our ability to perceive.) So we're not actually attentive to either.
• Much of the "trending" was about ridiculous topics including one candidate's workout photos and the other's use of words like "malarkey." ????? This is what's important in choosing a person who is "a heartbeat away from the president?" This is the how we choose a potential world leader?

When did the most important political decisions that will affect our lives become American Idol? Are we electing the Debater-in-Chief? Do we expect him or her to go mano a mano with other world leaders on TV to decide the fate of nations? Do we really think the endless dissection of jokes, wise cracks, facial expressions, body language, and zingers is the best way to make this important decision?

What about the Founding Fathers? How would they hold up?

Most wouldn't fare too well based on our pop-idol values.

George Washington hated to speak in public and many of his addresses were simply published and not spoken. He was self-conscious about his lack of formal education among the political elite of the late 18th century. He was intelligent, well-read, and a shrewd politician and judge of people and events but he would have appeared wooden and ill-at-ease in a public debate.

John Adams was scrappy and considered a good trial lawyer and effective legislator in the Continental Conventions. He defended British soldiers successfully after the Boston massacre (which would have been political death in today's world of negative ads.) He was also irritable and irritating and seldom curbed his tongue in his attacks on those who disagreed with him. He didn't play well with others when he disagreed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote soaring prose that still inspires us but he was a horrible speaker. This voice was weak and barely audible when he addressed any gathering and he avoided it whenever possible. He would have delighted in today's campaigns of negativity. Through his support of newspapers and others who he agreed with, he published or caused to be published, scathing attacks on his political enemies. His attacks, through his pal Jemmy Madison, went for the jugular in attempt to destroy Alexander Hamilton, and even George Washington while he served as his Secretary of State.

James (Jemmy) Madison was a masterful debater, although he too did not have a strong voice, and people often complained he was hard to hear in a large room. However, in his long state and federal legislative career and in the Constitutional Convention, he held his own with other more powerful debaters. Most famously, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention to ratify the new U.S. Constitution, he faced off against Patrick Henry. Although Henry brought his A game bombast and withering rhetoric, he turned out to be no match for Madison, an author of the document with intimate knowledge of every nook and cranny and how it had been debated and decided.

Today, we would not select the wooden Washington, the irascible Adams, the weak-voiced Jefferson or the egg-head Madison. We would have preferred the smooth-talking Aaron Burr, who kill Hamilton while still vice president; the pyrotechnic Henry who was an avowed anti-federalist who would have gotten rid of anything but independent, autonomous state governments; the avuncular, always charming and folksy and wily Ben Franklin, who would have only a one-house legislature, removing a critical check on popular passion; and who knows what other folly.

Presidential leadership is not about "optics." Would we elect Lincoln today? Would we elect the very short, "great little Madison?" Would "his rotundness," Adams receive our nod? Would we pick Jefferson who was famous for his slouching posture as well as his weak voice? Sadly, probably not.

I'll continue to enjoy the debates. I'll go to the polls and cast my ballot. But it would be more assuring to me if citizens watched the debates using the active listening techniques I teach managers and executives.

• Quiet your mind and ignore stray thoughts or preparing a response.
• Focus your entire attention on the other person.
• Listen to what he or she is saying and observe the body language and tone.
• Ask questions to make sure you understand the other person and that he or she knows you understand.

Finally, I can't help but quote from that poor debater, Thomas Jefferson:

"A nation that expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization … expects what never was and never will be."

Or maybe from that fierce debater, James Madison:

Liberty & Learning lean on each other for their mutual and surest support.

Please vote...and please, make a rational, informed decision. It ain't American Idol!

*     *     *     *     *     *

(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.

Check out more about the politics of the early republic and today's leaders in Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers. http://advantageleadership.com/section/Conventional_Wisdom/17/

Dirtiest Election Ever: July 4th Battle of the Titans

Thomas Jefferson. John Adams. Comrades in the revolutionary struggle. Friends. Allies. Not in 1800.

In 1800 they squared off against one another in what many historians rate as the dirtiest election ever. They were the public face of the newly minted political parties; Adams for the Federalists and Jefferson for the Republicans. They were locked in a battle with few rules and fewer scruples.

But that wasn't always the case. In 1776 they were members of the historic Continental Congress. They were ahead of many of their contemporaries in realizing the need to break from Britain. Although Jefferson was relatively new to the Congress and Adams was a seasoned veteran, Adams recognized the talents of Jefferson immediately. They were designated a committee along with Ben Franklin to draft a document for the Congress to declare independence. Adams immediately suggested Jefferson pen the draft for them to review.


The rest, as they say, is history. Jefferson penned the document, the Congress did a little editing, and then they members signed. The official signing date was set for July 4, 1776 and has been celebrated ever since. Adams believed the day should be marked with fireworks and celebrations and tonight I'll be off to watch some locally and listen to my husband play in the Greater Miami Symphonic Band. It will be a joyous celebration.

But there is another anniversary to notice today. After many years of close friendship and public service, Jefferson and Adams entered our first federal government in 1788. Adams became George Washington's Vice President and Jefferson Secretary of State. The slow unraveling of a long relationship began as they drifted to different ends of the political spectrum. By the third national election in 1796, the proto-parties had emerged and with some maneuvering behind the scenes by Alexander Hamilton, Adams, the Federalist, became president while Jefferson, the Republican, became Vice President. The split became complete and set the stage for the battle of titans in 1800.

With Jefferson's victory, Adams infamously lit out of town early on inauguration day to avoid formally passing the reigns of government to his bitter foe. And so the animosity festered below the surface for years. Almost a decade later, their mutual friend Benjamin Rush began a quiet campaign to reunite the former friends. For the last years of their lives they renewed that relationship forged in the crucible of the Revolution and wrote a series of letters not just for one another but for us. In the process, the terrible memories of the 1790s and early 1800s fell away, and a remarkable friendship emerged again. They talked history, politics, farming, and aging. These letters should be required reading for every citizen. There is no better insight into the minds of two of the revolutionary brotherhood.

But here's where truth is stranger than fiction. In 1826 both titans turned down requests to speak at the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence celebrations. Both replied they were ill and not feeling well. As the day drew near, both men took to their beds, terminally ill. Jefferson drifted in and out of consciousness. Sometime in the early hours of July 4th he seemed to rally and asked, "Is it the 4th yet?" Adams woke briefly in the afternoon and said, "Jefferson still lives." But Jefferson was already gone and Adams joined him.

After an almost life-long relationship with its depths and heights, these two extraordinary founders of the republic died exactly 50 years after bringing the founding document into existence and more importantly dedicating themselves to founding our country. You cannot make this stuff up.

So are there any lessons for leaders, for politician, for individuals? Perhaps only one: Do not allow politics or other such foolishness to separate you from other people. Friendship - true relationships - are more important than ideology and other inanities. If Jefferson and Adams could survive the dirtiest election ever and reconnect, there is some hope for our own fractured country.

* * * * * * * *
What's your idea: Do you have friends and do you maintain relationships with people you disagree with in politics? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein,  http://advantageleadership.com/section/Our_Team/3/ president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.  Http://www.AdvantageLeaership.com
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers http://advantageleadership.com/section/Conventional_Wisdom/17/

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note:

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com  mailto:Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

We've started a companion YouTube series and the introduction is up. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZF_JGFu6Zw&feature=relmfu

Dirtiest Election Ever: Voter suppression, a time-honored tradition?

If you’re following U.S. politics, you know the current contest between Governor Romney and President Obama is getting nastier with each passing day and will soon surpass the primaries for down-n-dirty campaigns.

People decry how nasty campaigns have become, but the nastiness was injected almost from the beginning. Many historians put the campaign of 1800 at the top of the list for dirty contests.

That election pitted the sitting president, John Adams, against his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson. 1800 was the first big contest between two distinct emerging parties. Adams represented the Federalists while Jefferson stood for the Republicans (predecessor of today’s Democrats.)

Although it wasn’t considered gentlemanly to actually campaign, Adams and Jefferson worked the levers behind the scenes, the totally partisan press stirred the pot, and their surrogates were out there campaigning. Jefferson was especially adept at the anonymous press articles and getting his friends to “leak” his letters.

But what about the electorate?

Today there is a raging controversy about voter suppression. In my home state of Florida, the state is suing the Federal Government to get access to citizenship records and the Feds are suing the state for violating the Voting Rights Act. At this writing the issue is not resolved.

But are the notions of who is eligible to vote and voter suppression really new? Of course not! The very existence of the Voting Rights Act testifies to the history of suppressing the vote of African Americans and others. (In full disclosure, I benefited directly from the Voting Rights Act. Until the law passed, I could not vote in Indiana where I was a town resident and university student.)

Blacks, Indians, women, and propertyless whites were denied access to voting from the beginning of the Republic. But a twist on voter suppression was actually written into the Constitution – the infamous Three-Fifths Rule.

In Article I, Section 2, which describes the qualifications for Representatives, here’s what our founding fathers agreed to in 1787:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of other Persons.

First, let’s decode it: “three fifths of other persons” means each enslaved person was to be counted in determining the total population as 3/5 of a person. This increased the number of people counted in the population to determine congressional districts inflating representation. However, these “other persons” were not allowed to vote.

The practical effect of this notorious clause was to provide more electoral votes to states with large enslaved populations than they would have had based on the white population. This skewing of the electoral vote meant Jefferson had a distinct advantage over Adams. In fact, it helped elect the Virginia dynasty – Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. (For dedicated political junkies, check out Negro President: Jefferson and the Slave Power by Garry Wills for a detailed look at the implications for electoral votes.)

In 1800 the issue was gerrymandering the Electoral College to suppress the vote of states without a large enslaved population.

This odious section of the Constitution was not eliminated until the 14^th Amendment was passed in 1868. Even then, Indians were still excluded. In 1870 the 15^th amendment was passed finally providing:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Women were not a part of the voting system (with a few exceptions) until passage of the 19^th Amendment in 1920.

What are the lessons for today?

Lessons for political leaders:

Tempus fugit: The Roman poet Virgil is credited with adding this handy phrase to our lexicon when he wrote, “fugit irreparabile tempus.” Time flees irretrievably. While politicians in every age get mired in the immediate mandate to get elected and re-elected, they fail to notice history is leaving them behind. The wrongs will eventually get righted and they will be on the wrong side of history.

Carpe diem: The Roman poet Horace coined this useful phrase as, “Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.” Seize the Day, putting as little trust as possible in the future. For politicians this could be interpreted as, “Do what is right today and don’t wait for a ‘better time’ at some date in the future.” Gradualism and hope are not successful strategies for change.

Usque ad: All right I’m pushing the Latin translation but, roughly, it means “inclusive.” In terms of political leaders this means including every citizen on the voting rolls, educating them, and getting them out to the polls. Some countries have mandatory voting, which probably world not work here. But the embarrassingly low turnout, even for presidential elections, erodes democracy.

Lessons for leaders and managers:

Tempus fugit: The time to fight bias, especially unconscious bias in the work place is now. Time is fleeing and every day that passes without tapping into the totality of human potential sets companies, governments, and nonprofits/NGOs back. In a globally connected world, there is no rational, financial or organizational reason to exclude the creative capacity of every human mind.

Carpe diem: Every year the Catalyst Award seeks out companies that have unearthed their hidden biases, broken down the barriers, and tapped every employee’s potential contribution. There is always a bottom-line upside.

Usque ad: Inclusiveness can easily slip into the buzz-word-du-jour waste bin. Yet, as the most successful leaders have figured out inclusiveness and celebrating diverse ideas, opinions, and insights leads to the innovation necessary to compete successfully today. Why would you exclude anyone? Which ideas can you afford to miss?

Lessons for personal action:

Tempus fugit: Time flees while you divert your mind with ____ (fill in the blank.) The election draws near. Inform yourself on the issues, choose your candidate, and go to work for him or her.

Carpe diem: Speak out. Look for every opportunity to support full voter registration and get-out-the-vote efforts. Voter fraud is not threatening our democracy…Voter apathy is.

Usque ad: Insist your candidates embrace inclusiveness, not only in their campaigns, but in their support of full voter participation. The actual number of fraudulent voters is miniscule and non-consequential. The impact of non-participation is devastating. Turning this around could change the game entirely for all of us of every political stripe.

* * * * * * * *

What's your idea: Can we progress from our checkered history on voter suppression and apathy to full participation? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: Is money the great corrupter of politics?
* * * * * *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein,  president, Advantage Leadership, Inc. 

Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note:

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com 

We've started a companion YouTube series and the introduction is up. Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZF_JGFu6Zw&feature=relmfu

Dirtiest Election Ever: Are foreign affairs so foreign?

European policies stymie American growth

Foreign countries threaten American existence

African pirates disrupt shipping

Headlines from today’s news? They could have just as easily been blazoned across the papers of 1800. During every election cycle, people are more focused on domestic issues; situations affecting them every day in obvious ways. Unless there is some huge threat, foreign affairs fall way down the list of criteria for choosing a candidate.

In 1800, the types of foreign threats the U.S. faced were eerily similar to those that affect us today. Perhaps the biggest were those growing out of the ongoing wars in Europe, especially the monumental battles between England and France.

President George Washington had insisted on a position of neutrality in the face of these conflicts. However, neither England nor France recognized our stance and attacked our shipping with impunity. Under President John Adams we engaged in the Quasi-War with France as our shipping was attacked on the high seas and in the Caribbean. England routinely boarded our merchant ships and impressed sailors they claimed were British citizens. They also barred us from the Caribbean. Pirates along the infamous Barbary Coast of Africa and in the Mediterranean routinely attacked our ships, held the captains for ransom, and enslaved the crew.   



The World in 1800

By 1800, the battle lines were pretty firmly drawn. John Adams was always distrustful of France since his days as a diplomat there. He and the Federalist Party leaned towards England. In fact, he was disliked in his own party for not going to war with France. The Federalist, concentrated in New England and South Carolina, wanted to reestablish profitable trade with England. There were even calls for secession.

Thomas Jefferson and his Republican Party disliked the British and wanted stronger ties to France. During the French Revolution, Jefferson supported the new order even when it turned into the Terror. In 1800 he was accused of being a Jacobin – a term the electorate translated as far more than a Francophile. They accused him of wanting to abolish private property and religion and turn their daughters into prostitutes in Temples of Wisdom!

In the midst of all this, Adams had sent delegates to England to negotiate a new Treaty, which was universally hated because people saw it as a complete capitulation to the British. He was given no credit for keeping the fragile new nation out of wars we would have surely lost.

Character assassination was the game of the day, just as now. Each side tried to paint the other as traitors to the American people.

What can leaders learn from this for today’s elections?

In the political realm, people like to say, “Politics ends at the water’s edge.” They recall times in our history when this was the dominant approach. However, those moments are not the norm as much as we might wish them to be. What can we ask of the presidential candidates? Articulate a coherent, comprehensive policy that makes it possible to choose. (Of course, that requires an electorate that educates itself on the issues, makes rational decisions, and goes to the polls. Because none of these conditions has ever been met in our history, this may be asking too much.)

Lessons for Business Leaders

Foreign affairs matter: In a global economy, virtually no business is isolated from what happens elsewhere. Consider in greater depth all the ramifications of outsourcing or trading with any country. By now companies understand there is more to the equation than lower production costs or opening new markets. Weigh these other factors and consequences seriously in making decisions. Help everyone understand how these decisions affect them and fit with the mission.

Foster understanding: In global companies or those that do business directly in other countries, insist on cultural understanding and sensitivity. These include learning the language and engaging with people. Too often employees live in cultural isolation. Unconscious bias is rampant and undiagnosed. Assess your situation independently and take action to correct your issues.

Forget isolation: Even in companies that do no direct business with other countries, do not isolate yourself and your staff from what is going on in the rest of the world. Help people understand how all the pieces of the global puzzle fit together. Educate yourself and your staff about the issues. Look for opportunities to engage with people from other countries. The “isolationist” position is unsustainable in today’s world. We cannot afford the fear, mistrust, anger, and xenophobia isolation breeds. It’s always in our interest to know and understand the world as it exists not as we might like it to be.

Both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson interpreted their work and interactions in Europe through their own biases. Adams tended to reject outright people, nations, and customs that were different. Jefferson, although more open, accepting, and even embracing of various European cultures, was ready to overlook any negative by reinterpreting everything through his political philosophy. Neither approach serves today’s political and business leaders.

* * * * * * * *

What's your idea: Can we actually adapt ourselves, our businesses, and our country to a global world? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: Voter suppression, a time honored tradition?

* * * * * * ©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc. 
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note: Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com 

We've started a companion YouTube series and the introductionis up. Check it out.

Dirtiest Election Ever: Beyond the F-Bomb

Every time a politician drops the F-bomb, the media are all atwitter. (Can Twitter be atwitter?) They run the clip over and over BLEEPING politely at the crucial moment so as not to offend us. The current two candidates for president are not the sort of folks who will be caught using this anglosaxonism although their associates may be. Jefferson and Adams in the election of 1800 usually preferred the perfect barbed comment also.

So what? Move off the "networks" and onto the cable channels and the F-Bomb is just another word among many floating across the airwaves. But looking back to the really nasty election of 1800 and its parallels with 2012, what is the story when it comes to salty language and attack words?

Today as in 1800 there were words that people thought too rude for public discourse. But what was happening behind the scenes? There folks weren't as gentlemanly as we like to think, especially when talking among themselves.

George Washington had a towering temper he kept in check for the most part. When he let it rip he could toss the verbal bombs with the best of them. When delegates to the Constitutional Convention sat with their pipes and port after dinner, they often swapped bawdy stories, just as people do today. One of their favorite games was inventing wilder and wilder puns about Gouverneur Morris' wooden leg and his way with the ladies. James Madison was infamous among his contemporaries for his off-color stories.

It's true they didn't throw the F-Bomb but they certainly came close. John Adams was no fan of Alexander Hamilton and in a letter to Benjamin Rush in 1806 let fly with this diatribe against Hamilton for remarks he had made denigrating George Washington.



John Adams

Although I read with tranquility and suffered to pass without animadversion in silent contempt the base insinuations of vanity and a hundred lies besides published in a pamphlet against me by an insolent coxcomb who rarely dined in good company, where there was good wine, without getting silly and vaporing about his administration like a young girl about her brilliants and trinkets, yet I lose all patience when I think of a bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar daring to threaten to undeceive the world in their judgment of Washington by writing an history of his battles and campaigns. This creature was in a delirium of ambition; he had been blown up with vanity by the tories, had fixed his eyes on the highest station in America, and he hated every man, young or old, who stood in his way or could in any manner eclipse his laurels or rival his pretensions. . . 

Pretty strong stuff...but not as strong as these "gentlemen" wrote under pen names in the popular press skewering one another and accusing one another of the worst intentions, treason, and more. Generally they lambasted one another with innuendo as well as direct attacks. In fact, what can be a delicious pastime is dissecting their elaborate language and watch as they slip the verbal knife between the ribs and give a fatal twist.

We seldom hear such creativity today where it's so easy to just go for the flat obscenity rather than the creative crudity. I was impressed when George Will called Donald Trump a bloviating ignoramus. The founding fathers would have liked that.

But are there any Leadership Lessons in all this?  Perhaps a few:

• Leaders control themselves: George Washington was prickly and thin skinned and took offence easily. Yet his advice to himself and others was to show restraint of "tongues and pens." He kept his temper in check most of the time. "Losing it" on a regular basis causes people to disengage. 
• Leaders cultivate creativity: "Bloviating" is such a yummy word and I'm sure many people scurried to google its meaning. (Synonym for blow hard) In our general anti-intellectual climate, leaders encourage their people to think and grow and become more articulate.
• Leaders do not condone crudity: Leaders know that some language offends some people just like the bawdy stories and sexist remarks that have disappeared for most workplaces. They do not insist on better communication because of "political correctness." They want to be inclusive; they want everyone to be engaged.

Just because the founding fathers weren't saints doesn't mean we do not honor and respect them. We admire them because, like us, they were all too human, capable of pettiness and backbiting, and sometimes behaving badly. We can learn from them precisely because they are human. We can learn from their mistakes and when they triumphed over their human nature. And we can learn from their fierce honesty because they would call a bloviating ignoramus a bloviating ignoramus!
*     *     *     *     *     *     *     *

What's your idea: Can we joust with more inventive language without bloviating? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: How foreign are foreign affairs?

* * * * * *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note:

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

We've started a companion YouTube series and the introduction is up. Check it out.

Dirtiest Election Ever: God or Not God, That is THE Question

Religion seems to always raise its specter during the silly season - the election cycle. This is one of the smarmier sides of politics - folks attacking Romney and his religion, Mormonism, as a cult and non-Christian; other folks accusing Obama of being either a secret Muslim or white-hating black Christian...

After a while it seems like outrages get more extreme...but is it anything new? Unfortunately not. The "dirtiest election ever" was held in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson faced off against John Adams...and guess what? Religion and accusations about religion were front and center. Remember, in 1800 ALL newspapers were affiliated with one or the other party. There was nothing that resembled unbiased journalism...and there were virtually no rules. NOTHING was sacred.

Jefferson, the Vice President, was the standard bearer for the Republicans. (No not the same party as the one today. Jefferson's Republicans morphed into the Democratic Republicans and later the Democratic Party.) Adams, the sitting President, represented the Federalists (who died off in the early 1800s.)

Both were "founding fathers" and recognized as great patriots.

Adams had been one of the first to push for a break with England and was a leading member of the Continental Congress and helped write the Constitution for the new State of Massachusetts. He had been part of the committee charged with writing the Declaration of Independence. He served as Washington's Vice President and kept the new country out of wars with England and France.

Jefferson was also part of the committee charged with drafting the Declaration. Adams  proposed Jefferson should create the draft to bring back for approval by Congress. Jefferson had served as war time governor of Virginia and was almost captured by the British. He had served as Adams' Vice President, Washington's Secretary of State, and,  earlier, been our representative to France.

Both men had sterling credentials...

This was the era of the Enlightenment that  swept Europe and the colonies. Adams, Jefferson, and the rest of the Revolutionary generation were weaned on John Locke's treatises. So it should come as no surprise that Jefferson was a Deist. In all probability so were Adams, Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton. The difference was these gentlemen never made public pronouncements or recorded their views in writing and Jefferson did.

If you're wondering what a Deist is...Essentially they believe god may have created the universe but does not intervene after the creation. Nature's laws can be studied and understood. There is no need for organized religion. Scriptures are interesting but not divine revelation. People must use and develop their rational capacities to solve the problems of the world. Logical belief for the children of the Enlightenment was heresy for the dominant Protestant culture of country in 1800. To add a little spice to the religious mixture, the late 18th century was the period known as the "Great Awakening" in America as a highly spiritual, evangelical spirit and "dissenting" religions spread across many states.

Jefferson had committed one huge sin in the eyes of many devout Christians (and political opponents.) He had written the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Its goal was to disestablish the Episcopal Church as the official religion in the state, allow freedom of conscience for everyone, and no longer allow state taxes to go to support religious schools and churches. (His buddy, James Madison, a masterful politician, got it through the Virginia Assembly, used it as a basis for writing the First Amendment to the Constitution later, and incurred the wrath and retaliation of Patrick Henry.)


Jefferson created his own version of the bible

So let the games begin.

Adams was vilified as a monarchist, still a dirty word in 1800. He was accused of plotting to set up a hereditary monarchy beginning with his son John Quincy.

The common epithet thrown at Jefferson was atheist, an accusation attached to him throughout his long political career. During the 1800 elections cycle Jefferson's support of the French Revolution earned him yet another attack - Jacobin. Like his French counterparts, it was said he wanted to destroy religion and abolish churches and private property.

Jefferson was the subject of viral attacks in the press. Yes, that's nothing new - it just took a little longer as other papers and pamphlets copied the following from the Gazette of the United States, a Federalist paper, and spread it:

The Grand Question Stated: only question to be asked of every American...Shall I continue in allegiance to God and a religious president or impiously declare for Jefferson and no God? 

Substitute today's candidates and the effect is the same.

What are the lessons for leaders today?

• Ignore labels: Successful strategic leaders know great ideas can come from anyone. They also know a religious or political label does not reveal how a person will behave and act. Bigotry, prejudice, and bias have no role for leaders. Savvy leaders search themselves for these traps and consciously refute them.
•  
• Advocate: Successful leaders will take their cue from James Madison. Madison was a religious man and member of the Episcopal Church. Yet it was he who brought his legislative skills to bear to oppose Patrick Henry and the Virginia elite and pass the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and penned the First Amendment to the US Constitution and shepherded it through the first Congress. It was Madison who championed the separation of church and state and opposed appointing a chaplain for Congress and opening sessions with prayer. Leaders advocate for the rights of those who have no advocate.
•  
• Practice What You Preach: Leaders put their faith or beliefs into action. We fault the founding fathers for their refusal to end slavery. Perhaps one of the most stunning exceptions was Robert Carter III, member of the Virginia elite. In 1791 he walked into the local courthouse and initiated the process to free all his enslaved people. He grew into his beliefs as part of the Great Awakening. He was a member of integrated churches, some of which had black clergy, and all of which preached complete equality. He freed over 450 people, more than anyone freed prior to emancipation 60 years later. Carter took what he believed to be the right action. His position was, "My plans and advice have never been pleasing to the world." Despite being ostracized by his fellow planters and ignoring the financial impact, he continued to support his former bondsmen, provided them land, and lived with them as neighbors.
•  
• Refute the Ridiculous: Leaders have the courage to refute the mud slung at their opponents. Throughout the down-and-dirty election of 1800, John Adams never refuted the attacks on Jefferson, nor did Jefferson refute those hurled at Adams. They were long-time friends and knew one another well. They knew the truth about one another. They missed an opportunity to demonstrate their greatness. Leaders defend the truth with enthusiasm as John McCain did in 2008 confronting the birthers.

What's your idea: Can we leave religion and matters of conscience out of politics and the workplace? Please post your comments.
* * * * * * *
Next: Discourse before the F-Bomb

* * * * * *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note:

Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com

Dirtiest Election Ever? Check out the media

The pundits and the media (ironically) decry the dirtiness or our politics - attack ads flourish and seem to have a real impact - SuperPACs now proliferate in the "new" no-holds-barred election cycle. Big money, dirty tricks, pants-on-fire lies and fabrications, and every low-down trick we know seem to be on display. It's all new, right? We used to have more well-behaved elections, right? The founding fathers didn't intend us to be so undignified, so down-in-the-gutter, so...

Sorry to disappoint all those folks who have never gone beyond Washington chopping down the cherry tree in their study of our history. Modern-day politicians are pikers by the founders' standards! They may even be laughing at the few "rules" we have set up.

(In full disclosure, I want to make my position very clear: I hate negative campaigning, dirty tricks, big money in the mix, and all the rest. But as a student of history and psychology, I know it ain't gonna change.)

The dirtiest election in our history? 1800, Jefferson vs. Adams. Yes, the first few elections had gone smoothly and pretty much as expected. Washington, who could have been elected every time, stepped down after two terms, establishing a precedent that would stand until Roosevelt's four terms and the predictable backlash establishing two terms as the rule. John Adams, not always the most popular of the "fathers," had served as Vice President for Washington's terms and was elected president.

But by the time of Adams election in 1796, the die was already cast. By then we had two parties who were at war with one another; The Federalists, headed by Alexander Hamilton and including Adams and the Republicans,* headed by Thomas Jefferson. Just to make things interesting, Jefferson the Republican would serve as Federalist Adams VP.**

Over the election cycle I will be looking at the big controversies in our present day and demonstrating how they mirror that critical election of 1800.

To kick it off, let's look back at where it all started for our republic.

No sooner did Americans stop fighting the British than they started fighting one another. After newspapers ceased to report on military exploits and denunciations of the Crown they began to fill their columns with the cannonades of politics. Having briefly put aside their old ways of lying and dissembling, exaggerating and trivializing, distorting and abusing and insulting, journalists turned to them again with a new and even more pointed vehemence as they began to consider the most important question of the time, possibly the most important question Americans have ever had to ask themselves: Now that we have won the right to govern ourselves, how, precisely, do we go about it?1

How indeed...The media of the late 18th and early 19th century had no rules. Every newspaper and pamphlet (the blogs of the day) was proudly partisan, secretly funded by candidates, and out to destroy the opposition.

What are the lessons for today's leaders?

• Demand better.  Whether as corporate sponsors or consumers, leaders need to demand better reporting, better information, and better coverage. Trying to find out what's happening in the world is a frustrating undertaking. The BBC is still one of the best sources for in-depth, relatively unbiased reporting. Watching CNN outside the US also means getting some thoughtful straight-up reporting. But back at home? We're back in the 18th century with "infotainment" ruling the day - lots of chatty folks, teasers for absurd stories, and the occasional headline buried in the dross. Leaders demand better results from their staffs constantly, so apply that to the media.
• Dig deeper. Thought leaders must push themselves to dig deeper into the situation. What's under the surface? What else is going on? Behind the screaming headline or breathless "news" reader, what are all the facts? If you want to blog or report or tweet or speak about what's going on, do your homework. Today we drown in lots of stuff floating around the Internet with no fact checking, verifying sources, or taking on any of the other disciplines of "serious" journalism. Leaders demand as much information and as many facts as possible before making decisions. Do the same before arguing your case. Separate opinion from a fact-based explanation.

• Decide ethically. Leaders are clear about their values and filter their decisions through those. At the same time, leaders don't need to trash the opposition to make a case. Whether supporting your favorite candidate or touting your product and services, tell the truth. There is really no need to run down the other guy or the other product to demonstrate the value in your point of view or product. Discuss the benefits. Leave the trash talk for the entertainers.

What's your idea: Can we overcome our human nature and our history? Post your responses on the blog. http://conventionalwisdominstitute.blogspot.com/2012/05/dirtiest-election-ever-check-out-media.html

*     *     *     *     *     *     *
Next: God or No God, that is the question.

*Jefferson's Republicans morphed into the Democratic Republicans and then the Democratic Party. Hamilton's Federalists never held the presidency after Adams and faded from the scene in the early 19th century. Today's Republican Party formed in the 1850s and their first president was Lincoln.

**The Constitution initially required the top vote getter to become President and the second highest to become Vice President. Because of the disasters occurring in the 1800 election, it was changed to the present form of a "ticket" with the two people running together and no splitting of votes at this level.

1 Eric Burns, Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism, Public Affairs, New York, 2006
*     *     *     *     *     *
©Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, president, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Want to know more about the tumultuous fights at the Constitutional Convention and the election of 1800? Check out Conventional Wisdom: How Today’s Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers

I NEED YOUR HELP: I'm beginning research for my new book on the influence of leaders on their organizations (Washington's Shadow) and I'm interested in your experiences or ideas for case studies. Do you know a leader who has had a profound influence shaping the organization's culture and changing it for the better? (I'm not interested in negative stories which are much more common.) Drop me a note: Rebecca@AdvantageLeadership.com