Why Vote? To keep a republic

As the delegates were leaving the Pennsylvania State House that September day in 1787, having just written the U.S. Constitution, a woman approached the venerable Dr. Franklin and asked what sort of government they were proposing. He answered, "A republic, if your can keep it."

It's as simple as that. We can only keep our republic by exercising our right to vote and the corollary is informing ourselves about the candidates and the issues. Three thoughts come to mind:

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

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

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people...They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. - Thomas Jefferson

It's as simple as that...inform yourself and vote. Yes it's tough with restricted hours or Sandy's devastation. Yes, the weather can be bad or the lines long or the choices difficult or...

If you don't vote, you have no voice and NO RIGHT TO WHINE! That's right. You can't go on and on about what's wrong with the "government" if you don't participate. No excuses.

In the '90s I was working in St. Petersburg, Russia when they held their first free election. I went with my host to the polls -- a high school gym. It was exciting and brought a lump to my throat. My friend was casting a vote in an independent election for the first time. I don't know how she voted - for reform or a return to the old regime. In the end, the important thing is to cast your ballot.

In a republic, we then accept the result. We don't always like the result and sometimes would have preferred a different outcome. Every election is about the future of the republic. Informed voting is the only way to keep our republic.
*   *   *   *   *
(c) Rebecca Staton-Reinstein, President, Advantage Leadership, Inc.
Author, Conventional Wisdom: How Today's Leaders Plan, Perform, and Progress Like the Founding Fathers (Check out the special election day offer)

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? 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

Who is closer to Jefferson, Obama or McCain?

A friend asked me this question: Who is closer to Thomas Jefferson, Obama or McCain?
A loaded question because I didn't want to favor one candidate or the other publicly.

But the question set me thinking.
Obama certainly has Jefferson's gift of language and eloquence. He shares his cool demeanor and laid-back elegance.

McCain has many positions that are closer to Jefferson such as smaller government and lower taxes. Jefferson hated to give speeches and preferred more intimate settings for discourse much like McCain.

On the other hand, if Jefferson were able to overcome his prejudices, he might enjoy sitting with Obama on his mountain top at Montecello discussing philosophy and ideas. If McCain were at that dinner party, they might swap war stories and Jefferson would recount his narrow escape from the British when they were in hot pursuit.

Of course ahistorical speculation is always fun...
But thinking about Jefferson and his ideas on government got me to thinking about the election of 1800. If you watched the HBO series on John Adams you may remember it was bitter and brutal. In fact, it ranks up there as one of the dirtiest campaigns in our history. We seem to think that we invented dirty tricks in more modern times but human nature being what it is, nasty elections are nothing new.

During George Washington's second term, Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State, began to form a faction that he called the Republicans. (Now before you get too confused, this party morphed into the Democratic Republicans and then into the Democratic Party. Today's Republican Party formed in the 1850s to oppose slavery and preserve the union, but that's another story.)

As Jefferson began organizing his party to take on John Adams and his Federalist Party he did it behind the scenes. He paid a journalist to start a newspaper to attack the Federalists (and put him on the State department payroll!) He fired up his buddy James Madison to go after his hated rival Alexander Hamilton and implored him to take out his pen and cut him to shreds.

So the election of 1800 was an unremitting mudslinging bar fight. If we think the media are biased today, go back and read the dueling broadsides, pamphlets and newspapers of 1800. When the dust settled Jefferson and Adams were tied and the whole thing was thrown into the House of Representatives. The House went through many, many ballots when one representative finally threw his vote to Jefferson.

Adams tried to pack the Supreme Court and make other midnight appointments before he lit out for home in the wee hours of the morning rather than have to see the power of the presidency pass to Jefferson.

They remained alienated for many years until a mutual friend got them to make up. For the years they had remaining, they renewed what had been a close friendship during the Revolution. They wrote a wonderful set of letters discussing everything from crop rotation to the fate of the nation. On July 4, exactly 50 years after the Continental Congress passed Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, they both died.

You just can't make this stuff up. History is so much bolder than fiction.

So the answer is a toss up...Both Obama and McCain are Jefferson's heirs because they both share his vision of a republic where everyone is equal and free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. So choose a candidate that fits your notion of what that means and vote...after all, it's citizen involvement that sustains a republic and that's what Jefferson and the rest of the founders wanted for us.