I want to live in a country of can and do. One where we set big goals such as we did in going to the moon. That goal and how it brought the country together still excites many of us. Just look that years later people still thronged to see the Space Shuttle “retired.” There was sadness of an end to a dream, but the pride was still there.
We want to feel the excitement of doing important things, of working together, and yes, of even making shared sacrifices to see it happen. We want to feel the pride of achievement.
I respect conservative, centrist, and liberal political stances because it takes many viewpoints and a combination of approaches to make things work. In my column last week I opined how Southwest Airlines is successful because of its concentration on four areas: revenue, costs, innovation, and teamwork to make it all happen.
Unfortunately too much of our current debate is “no and can’t,” which in my opinion results in obstructionist tactics that produce continued gridlock and morass. Europe took a “no and can’t” approach to the financial crisis by using austerity tactics that appear to be creating rising unemployment. Not that some reality wasn’t needed, but a balance was also needed that addressed tough problems, but didn’t make things worse. It’s easy to talk about, but hard to do. The name-calling and knee-jerk reactions to every measure taken by the “other side” certainly doesn’t help.
Folks, we’re in a “your half of the boat is sinking” ship. This is not a good thing.
So what can you as a voter do? After you hear some viewpoints that push your buttons the right way, get beyond the surface and find out from knowledgeable people whether an individual candidate can do something besides say “no and can’t.” Can she or he represent a viewpoint, but do so in a manner that respects other viewpoints? What kind of priorities did he or she select? Did those priorities make things better as well as find ways to adequately address problems? If a first-time public office aspirant, what community or civic endeavors has this individual championed that were tough to do? Did the issue(s) take concentration and listening to different sides to find solutions to issues? What were the results?
Can this individual make a mistake, admit it and course correct? In working in the recruiting industry for over 20 years . . . actual behavior was a bone-fide, fair way of evaluating a candidate. Past behavior was the best predictor of future behavior and job effectiveness. So in hiring an administrator, employee morale and ability to get things done are two equally important criteria for selecting a candidate.
As long as behaviors are reported fairly and objectively, I see no problem with behavior reported in the media. What I don’t like is demonizing individuals, assigning motives to behavior or twisting facts to come up with some often irrelevant point. Don’t look for ideological purity, but for demonstrated experience and behavior relevant to the job with a track record of getting things done that serve more than special interests groups.
If you know nothing about the candidates in a race, don’t vote in that race. Better yet, get a sample ballot and get informed. We get what we put into something. Take the time to be a good citizen.
How do you stay informed?
Reprint from 5-2-2012 Fort Bend Independent
Recent Comments