Category: Digital Article

Evidence that the way the world works is determined not only by leaders but by followers – by ordinary people with little or no obvious power or authority.

• Two weeks ago, the unionized musicians of the Minnesota Orchestra voted unanimously to reject what management declared its final contract offer. As a result, one week ago, management of the Minnesota Orchestra locked out the musicians. Though the immediate impact of the lockout is negligible – the season is scheduled to begin only on October 18 – it’s not clear when the dispute will be settled. Moreover this particular standoff suggests the larger problem. As Detroit Free Press reporter Mark Stryker put it, “The … rising costs, and the recession, and the long-range cultural forces that pushed classical music to the sidelines of civic life – these forces created unsustainable models in many cities.” He would know. In 2010, musicians from the Detroit Symphony Orchestra staged a strike and stayed on strike for six-months, before an agreement with management was finally reached.
• As if Chile does not have enough problems – the constant anti-government protests, primarily by students. Now political unrest affecting indigenous groups across the South Pacific has hit Chile’s particular paradise – Easter Island. Tensions between Chileans and the Rapanui – Easter Island is known to its indigenous people as Rapa Nui – have grown significantly in recent years. And now they have escalated into a struggle for Easter Island’s independence from Chile, which they increasingly experience as a colonial occupier. So far, the more oppressive the Chileans, the more resistant the Rapanui. It’s a contest between two immovable objects that is being fought both in the courts, and in the streets.
• Workers employed by China’s Foxconn continued their intermittent but persistent protests. Things got out of hand when some 5,000 security guards were sent to quiet some 2,000 angry workers. 40 or more ended in the hospital.
• A band of Walmart workers staged a one-day strike in California. For all its public prominence and phenomenal growth, Walmart has a record of labor unrest, of which this most recent case was a minor example. (A relatively small number of employees charged their employers with regularly retaliating against those who dared complain about working conditions.) In the past, though, Walmart provided proof that the long arm of the law can be used in a big way, by workers to tame managers. In 2008, in order to dispose of some 63 different lawsuits against the company, Walmart agreed to settle to the tune of $640 million, and to electronically document its compliance with labor laws. Walmart has also been on the receiving end of the largest civil rights class action suit in U. S. history, a federal gender discrimination case, Dukes vs. Walmart. Though the Supreme Court ultimately decided (in 2011) in favor of Walmart and against Betty Dukes, the story is not over. Dukes has said she will continue to press her case, and Walmart has felt compelled to make significant changes aimed at supporting its working women.
• Panhandler Steve Ray Evans, whose sign reads “Starving Please Help,” has successfully sued Utah cities that cited him for begging near busy streets and highways. (The authorities claimed such begging was dangerous.) As reported by the New York Times, the 54-year-old Mr. Evens insisted he would continue to sue the state as he deemed it necessary. Said Evans, “I do it for survival purposes. I feel as though a lot of other individuals depend on it, too.”

Her name is Malala Yousufzai. She is 14 years old. Two days ago she was shot in the neck in her hometown in Pakistan. The shooter belonged to the Taliban, the militant Muslim organization that promptly claimed responsibility for the attack. The reason? Malala’s persistent insistence that she had the right to attend school.

According to her station in life, Malala, the daughter of a school teacher, was an utterly ordinary girl. However from the age of 11, she behaved in a way that by every measure was extraordinary. She took it on herself, in effect single-handedly, to protest the restrictions of life under the Taliban. The initial arrow in Malala’s quiver was the worldwide web. That is, her campaign began with a blog that described the rigors and terrors of life under the Taliban – especially for women and girls. (She lives in Swat, which some five years ago was overrun by the Taliban.) Her blog gradually transformed Malala from unknown and insignificant into the face or, at least, a face of Pakistani resistance to extremism. She campaigned tirelessly for her cause, organized a fund for poor girls to attend school, and last November was awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize. In short, even before she was shot, Malala Yousufzai had morphed from follower to leader.

But the attack made her a martyr. It galvanized not only the Pakistani people – Twitter lit up – but the Pakistani elite. Historically Pakistani politicians and high ranking members of the military have been reluctant to take on the Taliban. This time though was different. This time the authorities had the guts to speak out. The normally reticent Chief of the Army was typical. He personally went to Malala’s hospital bedside and then issued this statement: “In attacking Malala, the terrorists have failed to grasp that she is not only an individual, but an icon of courage and hope.”

It’s not yet clear how long the outrage will last, or how deep really is the national wound. Pakistan is, after all, no stranger to trauma. Similarly, it is not yet clear that Malala Yousufzai will play in the future the role she has played in the past. Among other reasons, her injuries were severe and the prognosis is uncertain. But one thing is sure: Should she recover and resume her previous leadership role, she will, as a consequence of her martyrdom, have greater power and influence than she or anyone else could earlier have imagined.

He turned 60 on Sunday – an event I wish went unnoticed. But it did not – to the contrary. The occasion evoked adoration reminiscent of nothing so much as the late Soviet era.

Supporters staged tributes worthy of a tribune, ranging from floating a giant inflatable birthday cake down the Moscow River, to a VIP concert in St. Petersburg, to a portrait of Putin planted on one of the highest peaks in Russia’s North Caucasus. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church hailed Putin as a “real patriot.” It was reported that one in five Russian women said they would be happy to marry him. And Russia’s Young Guard re-enacted some of his most prominent macho stunts, including scuba diving, flying a fighter jet, and playing hockey.

For his part, Putin deigned to give reporters an unprecedented look at what he insisted was his modest lifestyle. He told his television viewers that he was guided by “the rightness of what I am doing,” and reminded them that he had the support of the “overwhelming majority” of the Russian people. There were, to be sure, scattered protests, and some activists were detained by the authorities for staging “Let’s Send Grandpa into Retirement” actions near Red Square. But in the main this was a day to adulate and celebrate this latest in the long line of Russian autocrats.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the reporting by Paul Johnson, the conservative British writer and historian. It’s clear in any case that he reviles Putin – which is why he compares him to … Stalin. Like Stalin, Putin does apparently require some 250,000 security officials to protect him. But, unlike Stalin, Putin has a taste for the good life. According to Johnson, “Putin has for his own use a collection of 20 palaces, apartments, dachas and country houses, each fully fitted with security devices and staffed at all times…. His villa on the Black Sea, which is valued at about $1 billion, has every conceivable expensive device. He also has a yacht valued at around $50 million, as well as dozens of aircraft, including an Ilyushin jet that has an estimated $18 million in cabin fittings.” (Forbes, 10/22.)

It’s all rather revolting – metaphorically, but not yet literally. For all the recent public protests, and for all the premonitions of Putin’s fall from power, his political demise would seem other than imminent. His day of reckoning will come. And, unlike autocrats of old, he has no choice but to be cautious, careful not to trigger political unrest. But in the meantime, Putin sits pretty at sixty.

Evidence that the way the world works is determined not only by leaders – but by followers.

• American Airlines and its pilots’ union agreed this week to resume talks. But not before the airline, which has declared bankruptcy, and the pilots (they total some 10,000) nearly came to blows. The pilots are furious at management for, among other reasons, continuing to reward itself handsomely while pilots are suffering lost jobs and reduced wages and benefits. As a result, pilots have done everything but formally call a strike. They called in sick. (On one day American had to cancel 2% of its flights, more than twice the industry average.) They took part in what was called “informational picketing.” And they insisted on hyper-fastidious maintenance, resulting in an airline on-time rate that sank to below 50 per cent. (Pilots at some other airlines are similarly fed-up. Pilots at Spain’s Iberia have called 18 strike days so far this year; a March sickout by Pilots at Air Canada left travelers stranded; and pilot unions at US Airways and United Airlines are under court orders not to disrupt operations.
• As if to attest to their recent crackdown on Tibetan resistance to Chinese rule, Chinese authorities sentenced four protesters to between 7 to 11 years in jail. The Tibetans were linked to the self-immolation of more than 50 people since 2009, each an act of desperation in Tibet’s long-standing but persistent quest for self-government. The struggle between Tibetan independence on the one hand and Chinese control on the other shows no signs of abating. Both sides have dug in and there is no evidence of compromise. Nor is there any sign that Tibetans hell-bent on challenging Chinese rule, no matter the consequences, will surrender their struggle.
• If an ordinary Saudi has a gripe, it’s hard for him or her publicly to complain. The country is an autocracy run by a monarchy that bans political parties, unions, and public protests, and that tightly controls all old media. However, in Saudi Arabia as in most of the rest of the world are new media, social media, Twitter in particular, which has come to serve as national sounding board. Abeer Allam writes in the Financial Times (10/4) that “Saudis regularly take to social media to vent their anger, organize campaigns and question state decisions. Twitter has become a virtual ‘Saudi street’ which the government sometimes aims to appease.” This week’s issue – rising poultry prices – might seem trivial. But the government has nevertheless been put in the uncomfortable position of having to defend itself against a restive public tweeting complaints about “living standards that have forced citizens of one of the richest countries to worry about the price of chicken.”
• Keep your eye on Catalonia. Some weeks ago, Catalans took to the streets by the hundreds of thousands threatening to secede – yes, secede – from Spain. As preposterous as it sounds to the uninitiated, the struggle for Catalonian independence dates back hundreds of years, and was exacerbated during the 1930s, under the authoritarian rule of General Francisco Franco, who repressed Catalonian self-expression. Now, not surprisingly, the situation has been exacerbated by Spain’s recent economic woes, the Catalans feeling strongly that their region, which is relatively prosperous, is being looted by the central government. As a result of the widespread discontent, the Catalan prime minister called for new elections in November, which could strengthen the secessionists’ hands. This is not to predict that Catalans will secede, or that the government of Spain would simply allow them to do so. It is, however, to point out that these particular followers have it in their power to trigger a serious constitutional crisis. It’s just what Spain now needs.
• Finally, fed-up followers erupted in, of all places, Iran. Infuriated by Iran’s collapsing currency and other economic tribulations, most the result of sanctions imposed by the West, Iranians took to the streets. Their numbers were not huge, and it’s not clear that the protesters will do anything other than fade away. But after the Green Revolution was brutally aborted, it’s been rare as well as risky for Iranians publicly to show their ire.

Turns out there was an article in the New York Times (10/4) by Brian Stelter titled “Not Waiting for Pundit’s Take, Web Audience Scores the Candidates in an Instant,” that was similar to my blog, “A Device to Give Voice.”

Because I consider this phenomenon a sea change in how leaders and followers, experts and know-nothings, relate, I want to add to my own piece some of Stetler’s points. Each underscores my overarching argument, which is that people in positions of authority, in this case experts or talking heads, are obliged now to share center stage with ordinary people who have no claim to fame other than their own personal opinion.

Stelter makes the following points. First, the recent surge in so-called second-screen behavior was on display from the first moments of the presidential debate, and lasted throughout. This was in evidence on well known social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter (which barely existed in the last election!), and on some of the newer apps promoted by different media companies. Second, the instant feedback served to harden what almost immediately became the conventional wisdom, that Romney was strong and Obama weak. Third, the television networks that until only four years ago had a monopoly on pre- and post-game shows, themselves tapped into second-screen behavior.

Finally, and most importantly. Stelter writes that “many of the reactions were cynical, particularly on Facebook,” where users “accused both candidates of dodging questions and lying their way through the 90-minute session.” This is the kind of thing I write about in my recent book, The End of Leadership. It’s a curious phenomenon, difficult to pinpoint because the increased cynicism is difficult to measure, and impossible therefore to contrast to what was, say, a generation ago. Rather such cynicism, or skepticism, is in the ether; it’s part of the zeitgeist. However what we do know for certain because it’s easy to see is that by giving everyone a voice, social media elevate followers and diminish leaders. No wonder even presidents and prime ministers find leading is hard. No wonder NBC anchor Brian Williams added to his CV – he became in addition to newsman, a comic. .

OK, OK, OK, so last night’s debate was an exception to the general rule. It was exciting to watch one clear winner and one clear loser – if only because the outcome was such a surprise. The bloggers and the tweeters and the talking heads – all were veritably frothing at the mouth in some sort of national frenzy, stunned that the president had turned in so weak a performance, and even more stunned that the wooden Mitt Romney had finally been replaced by the “real” Mitt Romney.

Now as before, on TV anyway, the talking heads prevailed. But this time was different. This time they felt obligated to turn at every turn to the pollsters and the bloggers and the tweeters, to make sure they, the experts, were not out on a limb, to make sure they, the experts, were in lockstep with the American people.

Times have changed. As in every other aspect of 21st century life, followers are chiming in and weighing in as they never did, never were able to, before. And, for their part, the leaders, the experts, the people in positions of authority are reduced to sharing the stage with those who have no obvious calling cards, credentials, of any kind. But what they do have is a device – a device that gives them a voice. It’s enough to make even the high and mighty take to watching their back.

As usual, our obsession is with leaders. As usual, we seem never ever to tire of the relentless attention, non-stop for many months now, on the race between the Democratic and Republican candidates for president of the United States. So exhaustion sets in even before the main event has started – even before the first of the presidential debates takes place. For days now we’ve heard little more than who’s the better debater and who’s the worse – Barack Obama or Mitt Romney – and who is likely to leave whom bloodied and bent and who, in contrast, will emerge the triumphant victor.

But for someone like me the interest is not only in the two leaders, the two gladiators, but in the rest of us, the masses in the stands, waiting to see who beats up whom, how, and how badly. For this event is, primarily perhaps, an entertainment, a context between two men, not unlike two boxers in a ring or a two-man fight of any sort, in which it is expected with something approaching blood-lust there will be one winner, and one clear loser.

It’s too bad, really, for what happens down the line is about much more than two mere mortals. It’s about a whole constellations of individuals and institutions interacting in ways that are well beyond the control of any single leader, no matter how apparently powerful. By fixating with such overweening excitement and anticipation on the events of this evening, we underestimate the complexities of politics and diminish rather than enhance the likelihood that the nation’s political life comes to be considered our collective responsibility.

• One day after my blog appeared titled The Long Arm of the Law, there was this headline in the Wall Street Journal (9/29-30): “BofA Takes New Crisis-Era Hit.” The law wrenched from the Bank of America a settlement of $2.43 billion to appease claims it misled investors. This figure is the largest settlement of a shareholder claim by a financial-services firm since the financial crisis started. Even the WSJ acknowledged that the “deal is a sign that the U. S. banks’ battle to contain the high cost of the crisis continues to escalate, despite a four-year slog of lawsuits, losses and profit-sapping regulations.”

In this case, as in most others, an institution is being held responsible – not an individual or even a few individuals. Therefore, one might reasonably argue that this does not really count. No single person is being made to pay for the wrongdoing, but rather a large, amorphous organization – which means that accountability has been diffused. (Among ethicists this is referred to as the “problem of many hands.”) True enough – and it’s an important distinction. Still, diffused accountability does not mean zero accountability.

• It was announced that Cambodia has asked the U. S. to help it recover a 10th century Khmer sandstone statue from the Norton Simon Museum in California. It’s only the latest example of a major trend in recent years: relatively powerless countries seek to retrieve from relatively powerful countries what in the 21st century they have come to consider rightfully theirs. It is, if you will, a cultural leveling, in which countries of origin demand the return of various objects, usually art objects, that earlier were removed and taken elsewhere. In the past, such transfers were widely accepted, and in fact most of the world’s great museums, especially in Europe and America, were built in part on treasures that were, in today’s parlance, looted, stolen, or plundered. But times change. Such transfers are now often considered outright illegal, which is why countries such as Cambodia will not be mollified until they regain what they believe they lost. Egypt is at the forefront of this movement, having had retrieved in recent years objects of art from countries as various as the U. S. Australia, England, and Spain.

• Poor Tim Cook. For all his growing fame and fortune he has the bad luck to follow in the footsteps of the iconic Steve Jobs. Poor Tim Cook. This week, when users of the new iPhone 5 became more and more angry and then more and more vocal over Apple’s misguided mobile maps, Cook was forced to retreat. Poor Tim Cook. He felt compelled to apologize: “We are extremely sorry for the frustration this has caused our customers, and we are doing everything we can to make Maps better.” Poor Tim Cook. He was reduced to recommending the competition, map apps that were other than Apple’s. How much humbling can one man take? In this day and age, not much. Having been forced to eat humble pie this once, Cook cannot consume it easily again.

• In Spain and Portugal tens of thousands took again to the streets, raging against increased taxes, decreased government services, and high unemployment.

A conventional wisdom about the recent financial crisis is that no one paid a price for what went wrong. Crooks and con men are thought to have got off Scot free, unpunished and even untarnished by whatever their culpability and venality.

To a degree the conventional wisdom holds true. It is correct to conclude that most of the large cast of characters who played a role in what befell us have never and will never pay the piper.

But it is similarly correct to conclude that there are significant exceptions to this general rule. Since the long arm of the law is slow to reach out, the story is not yet over. In fact, there have been and will continue to be high level leaders who have been charged in a court of law with one or another misdeed, ranging from misconduct to a crime. Moreover bills such as Dodd-Frank have proven to have teeth, to be, at a minimum, a pain in the neck to those would try to cut corners at their convenience.

For several reasons, including the expense involved and the difficulty of obtaining enough evidence, legal recourse is hardly an everyday occurrence. But it is one way plain people have – the state has – of taking on leaders. It is one way of going after and bringing down people in positions of authority. Examples abound of those who have been or are being investigated or even prosecuted for what they did and did not do – some of them with marquee names from the past (Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron, and Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco), and from the present (Jon Corzine, former Governor of New Jersey and former CEO of MF Global Holdings, and Bob Diamond, former CEO of Barclays). Similarly there are examples of investigators who have made a name for themselves by taking on the high and mighty, for example, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who seems to specialize in going after high profile individuals and institutions famously (or infamously) seeming to smack of excess.

Look at what’s happening with Libor: More than ten governments around the world are looking into whether big banks rigged rates in a big way. While the case likely will drag on for years, it’s hard to imagine that in the end no one will be held liable. In fact, Barclays has already paid $450 million to settle charges it had reported false rates. For the Big Bank $450 mill is of course a mere pittance. But in this case at least, it’s likely to be a harbinger of more, far more, to come – which means that some individuals and some institutions will probably be brought to account.

Here’s the point: It’s difficult or even impossible for most of us directly to take on those who have far more money and power than we. In this significant sense, the law is our stand-in, our surrogate. It does, or at least sometimes it tries to do what we cannot: to bring to justice parties guilty of crimes and misdemeanors for which the rest of us have already had to pay.

Here and there was mention it had been a hard week at the State Department. Here and there were questions about security after the attack in Benghazi that resulted in the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens. And here and there were concessions by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, implicit or explicit, that something in Libya, and in Egypt, had gone badly wrong. (Just before the events in Libya, protesters had managed to scale the walls of the U. S. Embassy in Cairo, leap into the courtyard, and tear down the American flag.)

To her credit, Clinton appeared appropriately stricken, she announced the creation of a board to investigate what had happend, and she briefed members of Congress. But by and large Clinton has emerged otherwise unscathed, certainly by the liberal media that chose generally to downplay or ignore altogether what by any measure was her ultimate responsibility – unless you go to the top, to President Barack Obama.

To be sure, this story is not yet over. Even now the State Department is facing Congressional demands for an independent investigation. And even the liberal opposition – for example, Maine’s Republican Senator Susan Collins – is gunning for a better accounting. Collins argued the attack in Benghazi was not a black swan, “but rather an attack that should have been anticipated, based on the previous attacks against Western targets, the proliferation of dangerous weapons in Libya, the presence of Al Qaeda in the country and the overall threat environment.” Still, because Hillary Clinton is a liberal darling, her culpability in this matter has been sidestepped – both by her and by her natural allies.

It is, of course, possible if not probable that she is taking her marching orders on what publicly to say direct from the White House. Obviously the last thing the Obama administration, the Obama campaign, now needs is a foreign policy debacle for which the president and his team can reasonably be held responsible. Nevertheless it would have been seemly for the Secretary of State to display some small measure of contrition, and some small measure of individual and institutional responsibility. Similarly, it would have been seemly for a liberal outlet such as the New York Times not to bury the lead in an article titled, “After Libya Attack, a Fleeting Sense of Survival.” It would have been better and more to the point to take a tack similar to that of the conservative Wall Street Journal, which titled its article on the same story on the same day, “Miscues Before Libya Assault: Limited Security in Benghazi … Contributed to Tragedy.”