Author: Barbara

So one could reasonably argue that just as the United States was in some ways in the vanguard in the last decades of the eighteenth century, it was in some ways in the vanguard in the last decades of the twentieth. Some two hundred years after the American Revolution, there was similar ferment – the powerless taking on the powerful, demanding, finally, greater equity.

What then can we conclude about the historical trajectory? We can say what we have seen: that over the course of human history power and influence generally have devolved from the top down. 

Barbara Kellerman, The End of Leadership

The unprecedented attempt last night by House Democrats to wrest control from House Republicans was no more than this:  an attempt to wrest power from the powers that be, in this case, specifically House Speaker Paul Ryan, to force a vote on gun control.

In the short term, on the most obvious level, Ryan responded by squeezing the Democrats. He simply turned off the lights and announced their demand would be denied. In the long term, this will be seen as an historic moment in which the relatively powerless wrested some power and, as importantly, some influence, from the relatively powerful. The story of gun control  in America has yet fully to be told.

“Social Media Told Our Story,” Rep. John Lewis Says As He Ends House Democrats’ Gun Control Sit-In

In an unprecedented move, 51 followers made the seismic decision to take on their leader, in public. Their leader is the president of the United States.

Who are these followers? Most are mid-level State Department officials, career diplomats, who had the temerity to speak truth, their truth, to power. They had the temerity to take on the administration’s miserably failed policy in Syria, by attaching their names to an internal document that registers their strong opposition.

The dissenters urged a radical change. Basically they advocated a tougher approach to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, a more militant and military one, “which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process.”

There is such a thing in the State Department as a “dissent channel.” It’s a way of registering disagreement with official policy, which is why the Department has a modest history of dissent either by an individual, or by a few individuals banding together. Two years ago former ambassador to Syria, Richard S. Ford, resigned from the Foreign Service precisely because he was in such strong disagreement with the administration’s policy on Syria, which generally has been hands-off.

However, never before has dissent been so strong.  Never before have 51 State Department subordinates joined openly to challenge their superiors. It is not likely that as a result of their action President Obama will have a change of heart – or a change of policy.  However, the timing of their protest is no accident. Clearly it’s meant less to shape policy in this administration than to try to effect change in the next one.

In the old days a man like Judge Aaron Persky was virtually impervious to opposition. First, there would have been nearly none. Second, such opposition as there was, would have been muted. People simply did not take on a sitting judge – it just wasn’t done.

Now things are different.  Now Judge Persky of Santa Clara (CA) Superior Court has discovered that someone in his position is no longer immune to opposition.  No longer immune even to humiliation for a decision which many have found as offensive as objectionable.

Setting aside the question of whether or not the sentencing of Stanford student Brock Turner to what is effectively three-months in jail for a sexual assault was fair, what’s remarkable about this case is the widespread refusal to take the court’s decision sitting down. Here’s some of what happened since Judge Persky rendered his sentence:

• The victim released a long, powerful statement to BuzzFeed, which since has been read online millions of times.
• A petition was drafted to remove Judge Persky from the bench – which so far has almost a million and a half supporters.
• At least twelve jurors have openly objected to serving in his courtroom.
• Judge Persky was removed from presiding over a case involving a male nurse accused of inappropriately touching a sedated female patient.
• A Stanford Law Professor, Michele Dauber, has organized a campaign to remove him from office.

Whatever his final fate, it’s clear that the judge was not even remotely prepared for what hit him. His failure to consider the consequence of context did him in.

Having a referendum on whether or not Britain should exit the European Union (EU) is one of the dumbest political ideas in years.

It was David Cameron’s idea – who is not normally this stupid. But his zeal to be reelected in 2015 got the better of him. His ambition to win drove him to promise his own restive Conservative Party that if he remained as Prime Minister, such a referendum would be held.

Now, to his obvious dismay, the increasingly likely outcome is that he, and Europe, will lose. Contrary to what Cameron wanted and intended, the indicators are that on June 23 Britain’s electorate will vote to leave the EU.

There are all sorts of reasons this is a bad idea. A miserably bad idea. They are political, economic, and social. But above all to quit is to forget. It is to forget that during the 20^th century the bloodiest continent by far was the European continent. It is to forget that the EU was stitched together, slowly and painfully, primarily, precisely, to preclude this sort of bloodshed from ever happening again. It is to forget that whatever its deficits, the EU has been among the most heartening political accomplishments of the last seventy-five years.

In their fear and loathing, especially of immigration, increasing numbers of Brits are planning to vote to Leave.  If they end up winning, if they vote for Britain to ditch the EU, not only will Cameron’s name be sullied, they will give democracy a bad rap.

Assuming the Brits vote to leave the EU, the short term concern will be about the serious, deleterious impact on markets. But, assuming the Brits vote to leave the EU, the long term concern will be about the serious, deleterious impact on politics.

During what was, in effect, an acceptance speech last night, Hillary Clinton emphasized her place in history – so far as history pertains to women.

There is, however, another way of reckoning with what happened. In the 21^st century have been back to back President Barack Obama, and Democratic nominee for president Hillary Clinton. These are not just victories of sorts for African Americans, and for women. They are the most powerful possible indicators of how the world has changed – how those at the bottom rose to the top.

In the not so distant past African Americans were enslaved. And in the not so distant past women were, “if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.” To all appearances, both groups were without any power whatsoever, or any authority.

The reality, however, was different. During the 19^th century abolitionists and feminists, often yoked in the quest for their rights, found ways to demand what rightfully was theirs. And during the 20^th century Martin Luther King penned “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” and Betty Friedan The Feminine Mystique. No coincidence these classics of the leadership literature – these protests in prose – came out at the same time, both in 1963.

Similarly, no coincidence that just over a half century later Hillary Clinton is likely to succeed Barack Obama as chief executive. Leadership changes over time – and so does followership. What was once unimaginable now is.

Years ago my colleague, Stanley Renshon, a professor of political science at the City University of New York, wrote a book titled, The Psychological Assessment of Presidential Candidates (Routledge, 1998). Most of the time the book seems more academic exercise than anything else, not exactly mandatory reading when the choice of presidential candidates is between, say, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Whatever the political and ideological differences between the two men, they seemed at every juncture – not only during their presidential campaigns but during their entire adult lives – psychologically healthy enough to assume the American presidency.

Now, though, the situation is different. Now one of the candidates of one of the major parties, Donald Trump, raises questions about his psychological suitability for the nation’s highest office.

Until recently those who took issue with Trump’s candidacy raised questions about his ideological consistency and political reliability. But now I think it behooves us to confront a different issue. For Trump’s behavior all along, but especially in the last few weeks, has raised questions about no less than his mental health. Is this man psychologically healthy enough, mentally stable enough, to become chief executive and commander in chief?

In his book, Renshon recommends that we ask certain questions about all presidential candidates. Regarding Trump these five particularly apply:

• What evidence emerges from the campaign regarding the candidate’s temperament?
• Is the candidate easily excitable?
• Does he have trouble maintaining psychological balance and equilibrium?
• Does it take a lot or a little to throw him off balance?
• Are there specific things that throw the candidate off balance, such as questions regarding his integrity, his competence, his grasp of the issues, his record?

These are by no means the only relevant questions. Here’s another: Did the candidate make decisions only after consulting with a wide range of others – or did he tend to decide on his own? And another: What can be said about the candidate’s judgment?

In my lifetime Donald Trump is the only candidate for president representing one of the major parties that raises real concerns about psychological suitability. To dismiss these concerns as somehow inappropriate, or impossible adequately to address because Trump, like nearly every other leader, is unavailable for psychological scrutiny, is a dereliction of civic duty.

For the first time in years, the average compensation for chief executive officers was down, not up. Average CEO pay in 2015 was $19.3 million, down 15 percent from $22.6 million in 2014.

There was, however, a countertrend. Contrary to what might have been predicted – more women on more boards are widely viewed as tantamount to better corporate governance – companies with greater gender diversity paid their chief executives 15 percent more than companies with lesser gender diversity.

What’s going on here? The explanation provided by an expert on corporate governance, Nell Minow, to Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times, is the pressure on women to conform. Women, Minow said, “are under even more pressure to go along and get along.” Therefore, Minow suggests, in order not to be perceived as deviant, women vote in greater numbers for greater CEO pay packages.

This explanation would be more persuasive if the percentages of women on boards were lower. The pressure on minorities in groups and organizations to conform is great, but it is greatest when their numbers are lowest. When, in contrast, there is a critical mass, when the number of minority members approaches 30 percent of the total, this pressure is much less.

The following figures pertain:

• Of the 100 largest companies studied, 57 percent had boards on which women comprised more than 20 percent of the membership.
• At the 10 large US company boards with the greatest gender diversity, more than a third were women.

What can we deduce even from these numbers? First, that on the boards of some large US companies, the number of women did reach critical mass. Second, that many of those that did not reach critical mass, 30 percent women, did have many more women on their boards than mere tokenism would suggest. Third, that so far there is no evidence that if they were indeed equally represented, women on boards would decide on executive compensation differently from men on boards. Fourth, that what Nell Minow provides as explanation is speculation. There is as yet no evidence that confirms that on the issue of executive compensation, the pressure to conform is a, not to speak of the, determinant.

To be sure, although female representation on boards in some companies is relatively high, certainly in comparison with what it was even five years ago, female representation on critical committees, including compensation committees, remains low. This could turn out to be key. But, my point is that we do not now know why more companies with more women on their boards vote for more executive pay. All we know is that whatever the explanations, they are speculations.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an article titled “Romney’s Lonely Challenge to Trump.”  As the headline suggests, it’s about how Mitt Romney, the Republican standard bearer during the 2012 presidential campaign, is taking a path that others fear to tread. Romney is making no bones about it: he detests Donald Trump and fears that he if he becomes president he will be a danger to us all.

Romney describes Trump’s attacks on him as “constant and brutal.” But, Romney adds, he has no qualms about taking him on, though he stands nearly alone in vocal opposition.  When asked why he is willing to be risk being relentlessly ridiculed by Trump – a few days ago Donald described Mitt as walking “like a penguin” –   Romney says, “I wanted my grandkids to see that I simply couldn’t ignore what Mr. Trump was saying and doing, which revealed a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.”

I have considerable admiration for what Romney is doing. He does not, however, go far enough. He does not lead.

It’s one thing to take a stand. It’s quite another to take a stand and to rouse others to join your cause. We know full well that Mitt Romney is not alone. Large numbers of Republicans strongly agree with his opinion of Trump. But for whatever constellation of reasons – fear, greed, and the pressure to conform high among them – they are staying silent or even, in large numbers, falling into line.

If Romney continues to speak out in opposition to Trump, he will do the nation a favor. But if he fails to find followers, a leader he will not be.

To those among us who find the idea of a Trump presidency as onerous as incredulous, Hillary Clinton is a heartbreaker. Not a shocker exactly, as her history of evasion and deception is long. Still, at this critical moment in our nation’s history many of us were willing to move on, not to forgive or forget exactly, but to move on, given the likely alternative. Given that the only likely presidential alternative is Donald Trump.

Hillary makes difficult if not impossible the thought of voting for her with even a modicum of enthusiasm.  She’s too damned flawed.

Three of her greatest deficits are highlighted by the report of the State Department inspector general, which sharply criticized her exclusive use of a private e mail server while serving as secretary of state. The story is not new. But it does contain additional details which make it the more disturbing. In particular:

• Hillary Clinton violated the rules if not law by failing to keep proper records.
• Hillary Clinton secured staff members so cowed by her presence that they failed to speak truth to power.
• Hillary Clinton continues to deny, to obfuscate. She seems constitutionally unable to take responsibility – apology is not in her repertory.

“Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?”

“Bill” is one of the greatest songs in one of the greatest of all Broadway musicals – “Showboat.” The show – originally produced in 1927 and written by Jerome Kern and Oscar Hammerstein – was immediately recognized as a watershed. It was one of the first story lines to mix seriousness and spectacle, one of the first popular entertainments to tackle the issue of race, and one of the first musicals to contribute to the culture a bevy of songs destined to endure as classics.

While some of these songs are as familiar as they are famous – “Ol Man River” is an example – others are less so. Others songs from “Showboat” are less familiar and less famous, though they are equally gorgeous – among them “Bill.”

“Bill” is a song of love, from a woman to a man, a man who is other than “god-like,” other than brilliant or fabulously handsome. To the contrary. This Bill, the Bill from “Showboat,” can’t play golf or tennis, he isn’t “tall or straight or slim, and he dresses far worse than Ted or Jim.” Rather this Bill is “an ordinary man,” nothing special, nothing to brag about. But he is, the song makes plain, a good man, a man who makes the woman singing the song feel good and “comfy.” He makes her feel secure and well loved, “because he’s just my Bill.”

The song came to mind as Hillary Clinton recently made plain yet again that her Bill, her husband Bill, Bill Clinton, was anything other than ordinary – he was extraordinary. Bill Clinton was so extraordinary, in fact, that if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, she will, she said, put her husband “in charge of revitalizing the economy, because, you know, he knows how to do it.”

No mention of how exactly the former president would fit into a policy-making role in a second Clinton White House. No mention of precisely what part he would play alongside, say, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers. No mention of what supposedly would be his portfolio. Instead her assumption is simple: her Bill is so remarkable a man that he can do something, successfully, that no one else has ever done before.

Here’s my view of it. Bill Clinton should be retired. He should retire himself, withdraw from consideration from any position in another Clinton administration. Nothing against either one of them. But if Hillary Clinton is elected president, one Clinton working in the White House will quite suffice, thank you.

Whatever his gifts may be, I at least have had quite enough. Enough of Bill Clinton extraordinary man. I pine for “Bill an ordinary man” – Bill who hasn’t got “a thing that I can brag about.”