Be a Decider

Robert Frost

"In three words," once observed famous poet Robert Frost, "I can sum up everything I've learned about life - it goes on."

His words have come back to me again and again over the years. His classic "The Road Not Taken" compels us to choose, and often the path less taken proves more beneficial than the one well-trodden. But to take that road implies we are capable of making decisions.

I have been asked for counsel by others, it seems because they value my opinion. At first as a young bishop I was flattered a little. Who doesn't want to be seen as sagacious by others? Then I learned as I observed what they did after seeking my advice that they really didn't value my advice at all. They were just seeking approval for what they had already decided. Their subsequent actions rarely reflected what I had offered. So I don't offer much advice these days.

It's the universal God-given gift of moral agency that often gets in the way of people doing as we think they should or could. And it is almost always the case that we see their path much more clearly than they do as they muddle through life decisions that affect them for years to come.

The tendency to seek advice from others about what we should do next often gets in the way of trusting our own instincts first. There are those who seek advice from multiple sources, and the messages they receive are seldom triangulated for accuracy. Instead, multiple sources tend to create confusion and disorientation. Even the best-intentioned advice from so many sources can become debilitating.

President George W. Bush

Being a decider is a valuable trait of character to cultivate. When George W. Bush was POTUS and confronted with a myriad of problems at home and abroad, he was often criticized as weak and ineffective. (Compare and contrast with the current resident of the White House.) In one impassioned response to his critics who suggested Dick Cheney was the real force at work behind the throne, Bush emphatically declared, "I am the decider."

So it is in each of our lives. We cannot live our lives backward, cherishing our long list of reasons we have been victimized by this person or that person, this set of adverse circumstances or that one. Assessing blame for why you are where you are today may be comforting to you on some level, but in the end one must come to the realization that the past is nothing but the prologue to the future and no one needs to remain paralyzed by it.

And yet so often I see people who don't seem to be able to break out from the prison in which they find themselves. Those prison walls are built slowly over a lifetime - all the "what ifs," the "shoulda couldas," the "if onlys" and all the blame games. One need look no further than the dynamics now on full display in Washington D.C. for a bad example of what not to do.

When I have attempted to help people break out of these self-made prisons of self-deceit, they seem reluctant to walk through the open prison door, however. I observe they have grown accustomed to their familiar walls that enslave them. Even in misery, too often, some can find a perverse form of comfort. And now I have come to appreciate how unhelpful I have been to them by offering suggestions. In my role as the well-intentioned rescuer I have only further enslaved them as the victim when they have approached me with their latest dramas. I cannot undo the past for anyone. The power isn't in me, nor is it within them to rewrite history. The past is buried deep. Even what I did yesterday is now nothing but a memory. The facts cannot be altered in one iota. It simply is carved in granite stone and cannot be amended, except to repent when it is possible.

But in the very act of repenting we are set free. Our acts may have been chiseled in stone, but we need not assume the need for repentance is reserved alone for the "big" sins. We can repent of wallowing in our past, especially when things didn't turn out the way our "ideal life" suggested it might. That would be a good place to start.

When it comes to predicting what your decisions might lead to in the future, care and restraint is advised. I have proven to my own satisfaction that my best guesses are often faulty. Again, what stands in our way most often in reaching our goals is the abuse of agency by others who thwart our best laid plans. We have no control, really, over either the past or the future. Try as I might I have no idea what the intrigues of nations will mean to my life. All I can do is hope for the best and prepare for the worst the best I can. What we do have is the decisions we make today. It's the most obvious way to exert control, if it is control you seek.

"Seize the day" (carpe diem) is sound advice. Choices are routinely presented to us on a daily basis. Even seemingly small choices only seem insignificant because they are small, but they set us on a trajectory that projects itself into the unknown future. We make "best guesses." But choose we must. We cannot forever halt between opinions. When aided by revelation in seeking which choice to make, we may rest assured that God is invested in our lives and our desires. I have found it useful to take a long view when setting the goals. By that I mean picking a spot in the future to keep my eye on, then all the other choices become aligned with that grand focused goal. Aligning our choices also automatically eliminates many alternative paths that would divert us. When we choose what is best for our eternal welfare first, all other considerations will fall into a natural sequence.

President Thomas S. Monson

This weekend we will hear inspired counsel from our leaders in the 183rd Semi-Annual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. At the helm now stands President Thomas S. Monson, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has served in that calling since 1963, fifty years! We will hear messages from many leaders in addition. There will be much inspiration and counsel offered. Sometimes, they may seem repetitive. Because this weekend often comes at us like drinking from a fire hose, many tend to either tune out or give up because it seems too overwhelming to take in. However, what I have learned after many years of experiencing General Conference is that after the dust settles on Monday morning I am left to decide what comes next. Only I can decide for myself what I will do going forward.

President Boyd K. Packer

President Boyd K. Packer often observed, after listening to others present this or that proposal, "Therefore, what?" Those two words are the key to your decision making. After all that has gone before in your life, whether those circumstances were positive or debilitating, ask yourselves, "Therefore, what?" What will I decide to do today? How can I become a decider? What must I do to break out of the prison walls of my past that encase me today? Who will listen to my soul's complaints with the greatest understanding and empathy?

Prayer is the key to understanding what it means to walk by faith. Learning to listen to the still, small voice within is the first step. Acting upon the impressions received may seem difficult at first, but without our determination to take that first step off the launching pad will mean our ability to receive revelation will be hampered. Resolve today that you will become a decider, trust your inspiration, even your "best guesses," then take action and move forward into the uncertain future that awaits you. Acting day by day in faith with confidence in the impressions you receive from the Holy Ghost eventually leads to a lifetime of learned behavior. When those decisions cumulatively add up to learned obedience, happiness and satisfaction results. Don't agonize over your regrets. Surely you will have regrets, but suppress their pervasive influence to control your future and hold you forever captive.

Don't be like the Republicans and Democrats who incessantly blame one another for political gain. Give up blaming others. As a nation and as individuals we are where we are today. There is nothing to be gained by trying to assess blame for our present condition and there is ample blame to go around if you are inclined to find the scapegoats. Break out of the blame game. Don't stay in the victimization of hopelessness. Instead, take full responsibility for your choices. Stop making excuses as explanations for your condition today. Own it. Be prepared to accept full accountability for the consequences of your choices. Learn from past mistakes. Move forward. Stop looking backward.

Be a decider.

Why Bank of America Won't Modify Your Mortgage

As a boy, I always loved the story of David and Goliath. Herewith, a modern-day update to the story. If I were a betting man, I'd take Goliath.

I was opposed to TARP ("Troubled Asset Relief Program") from the moment it was announced. I wasn't fully certain of all the reasons at the time, but something about it just didn't feel right. I've done a lot of reading since that day to try to understand it, and after my last call with Bank of America last week I believe I finally have the answer. There's a valid moral question about whether principal reduction on underwater mortgages should be the latest in a long list of government giveaways, and many are opposed to it. This administration, however, seems more than willing to hand out more candy to borrowers.

In the fall of 2008, when it was first proposed, TARP smacked of financial cronyism. Hank Paulson, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, was Treasury Secretary under President George W. Bush. Along with virtually every other financial institution on Wall Street, Goldman Sachs was among the market makers in dodgy financial instruments with disaster written all over them, despite their gold star ratings. (I learned later many of the market makers were selling the market short from another desk in their houses.) It's what they do -- they play both ends of the market. Nobody complains. It's all perfectly legal. So why should we as free Americans reward them for their risky behavior, I wondered? Those were my initial thoughts.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Deseret News commending Congress for voting down TARP the first time. I've documented most of my feelings about all that on these pages in the past.

Fundamentally, there was a strong negative bias deeply embedded in my DNA against the philosophical roots of the bailouts for the financial institutions. I've been asked why. Would I have chosen a complete financial worldwide meltdown instead?

Here's my summation argument: By bailing out failing companies, Congress in effect decided to confiscate money (I use the word intentionally) from the productive elements of the U.S. economy, companies and individuals, and then made arbitrary decisions about which failing units to transfer it to. With banks who had ignored the risks and invested in sub-prime mortgage instruments assembled in securitization pools, Congress told us, "They are too big to fail. They must be rescued. Without the bailout there will be a worldwide financial catastrophe by Monday morning."

In the case of the auto industry, the government chose to sustain failed companies with obsolete or unsustainable business models. The unions imposed unsustainable demands, the company executives kept passing the higher costs along to consumers, and they deserved to fail. But by choosing to bail them out, the government prevented the resources of these failed and arcane behemoths of industry from being liquidated in the open market where other better-managed companies could have taken those resources and put them to better use in a thriving concern.

So everyone, including George W. "I'm a free market guy" Bush, held their noses and passed TARP. Congress went along with the dire warnings from Paulson and TARP was hatched. We learned later just how much lobbying money went into the re-election campaigns of those who voted "aye."

Back in the day when I studied Economics, it was a basic fact of life (I was told) that in a healthy free market we must permit failure to occur. (Sounds a lot to me like the arguments in favor and opposed to free agency in the pre-mortal world.) Success will be rewarded, but failure will also be punished by investors who will seek a higher return with commensurate risk elsewhere. It sounds so harsh, doesn't it? Survival of the fittest.

With a bailout, I argued at the time, the incentives are reversed. Failing companies are saved from their risky behavior and resources from the taxpayers are shifted arbitrarily by government, rather than being sorted out by the sometimes brutal efficiencies of the marketplace, where profitability is always rewarded. To this day I cannot understand how the bailouts were supposed to be good for our economy. In a country that I know rejects corporate business collusion, why would we as free Americans ever permit the government to pick and choose the winners and losers, when a free market economy does it so much more efficiently? Shifting those decisions to bureaucrats and politicians seemed exactly what we would want to avoid.

Here's a brief history of what happened in the infamous TARP bank bailout package of 2008, and then some comments about one participant's experience with one of the banks deemed "too big to fail" -- the one that services my mortgage:

Bank of America received $20 billion in the federal bailout from the U.S. government through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) on January 16, 2009, and also got a guarantee of $118 billion in potential losses at the company. ("US gives Bank of America 20 billion dollars in capital injection," Breitbart.com. 2009-01-15. Retrieved 2010-10-17).

This was in addition to the $25 billion given to them in the Fall of 2008 through TARP. The additional payment was part of a deal with the US government to preserve Bank of America's merger with the troubled investment firm Merrill Lynch. (Giannone, Joseph A. [February 5, 2009]. "U.S. pushed Bank of America to complete Merrill buy: report," Reuters).

Since then, members of the U.S. Congress have expressed considerable concern about how this money has been spent, especially since some of the recipients have been accused of misusing the bailout money. (Ellis, David [February 11, 2009]. "Bank CEOs flogged in Washington," CNNMoney.com. Retrieved March 31, 201).

Then CEO, Ken Lewis, was quoted as claiming "We are still lending, and we are lending far more because of the TARP program." Members of the US House of Representatives, however, were skeptical and quoted many anecdotes about loan applicants (particularly small business owners) being denied loans and credit card holders facing stiffer terms on the debt in their card accounts.

According to a March 15, 2009, article in The New York Times, Bank of America received an additional $5.2 billion in government bailout money, channeled through American International Group. (Walsh, Mary Williams [March 15, 2009], "A.I.G. Lists Firms It Paid With Taxpayer Money," The New York Times. Retrieved March 31, 2009).

As a result of its federal bailout and management problems, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Bank of America was operating under a secret "memorandum of understanding" (MOU) from the U.S. government that requires it to "overhaul its board and address perceived problems with risk and liquidity management." With the federal action, the institution has taken several steps, including arranging for six of its directors to resign and forming a Regulatory Impact Office. Bank of America faces several deadlines in July and August and if not met, could face harsher penalties by federal regulators. Bank of America did not respond to The Wall Street Journal story. ("US Regulators to B of A: Obey or Else," The Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2009).

On December 2, 2009, Bank of America announced it would repay the entire US $45 billion it received in TARP and exit the program, using $26.2 billion of excess liquidity along with $18.6 billion to be gained in "common equivalent securities" (Tier 1 capital). The bank announced it had completed the repayment on December 9. Bank of America Ken Lewis said during the announcement, "We appreciate the critical role that the U.S. government played last fall in helping to stabilize financial markets, and we are pleased to be able to fully repay the investment, with interest... As America's largest bank, we have a responsibility to make good on the taxpayers' investment, and our record shows that we have been able to fulfill that commitment while continuing to lend." (Bank of America to Repay Entire $45 Billion in TARP to U.S. Taxpayers, PR Newswire, December 2, 2009; "Bank of America Completes US TARP Repayment." 12-10-2009. Retrieved December 12, 2009).

Now to one man's story about trying to deal with the beast. First, there are no real live people working in Utah for the Bank of America with whom a mortgagor (borrower) can speak. All communication with Bank of America is done via mail or telephone. I have personally had to deal with them at three different physical locations and multiple phone numbers.

My mortgage was originated in 1997. After two and a half years of unsuccessfully attempting to modify my mortgage for a lower interest rate, I finally wrote a letter expressing my frustrations as follows:


November 10, 2010

Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP
390 Interlocken Crescent, Ste 350
Broomfield, CO 80021

Bank of America Home Loans Servicing, LP
PO Box 650070
Dallas, TX 75265-0070

Office of the Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff
Utah State Capitol Complex
350 North State Street Suite 230
SLC UT 84114-2320

REF:  Bank of America Mortgage Loan #xxxx

Gentlemen:
I received a telephone call from Bank of America this week informing me, “Your request for a loan modification has been declined.”  Further, I was informed I would be contacted next by a “negotiator” who would share with me my “options” within the next 30-45 days.  Now I’m wondering who the “negotiator” will be representing, and what will be “negotiated.”

Attached (click to enlarge), please find a letter dated March 30, 2010, in direct contradiction to the phone call, stating “You qualify for a permanent modification of your home loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program.”  I was told “we will be sending it to you soon.  Please be on the lookout for a package in the mail and return the Agreement to us by the requested date so that we can finalize your loan modification.”  That was SEVEN months ago!  The mailbox is still empty.

I am hoping what we have here is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.  The question before me now is which Bank of America do I believe?  My approval letter came from the first address listed above.  I have been making my payments to the second address listed above.

The person with whom I spoke most recently indicated I had passed “three stages of approval,” but somehow for reasons not adequately explained as she read from a prepared script that I had failed some test in the “fourth stage” of the approval process.  Until that phone call, I was unaware about anything regarding “stages of approval.”

I have made my trial payments of $xxx per month without fail since the first agreement dated July 3, 2009, after being told there was a “three month” trial period.  If this final stage development in the result of underwriting that was done over a year ago, you undoubtedly are making a decision that should be updated with fresh financial data which I would be happy to supply.  My income is still a fraction of what it once was, but I assure you it is sufficient today to more than qualify under a modification if reviewed and updated.  Fifteen months (two birthdays) have come and gone since the underwriting was originally done.  I’ve made the trial payments faithfully as agreed.  The whole drawn out process has now been in play for FIFTEEN MONTHS!

Your communications to me have now put me in an “awkward position,” to be stating it as simply as I can.  I have acted in good faith.  However, Bank of America has done the opposite, it appears, unless there is a simple explanation you can offer besides another phone call from someone reading a script.

When sharing my dilemma and my frustration this week with a good friend who is also a mortgage broker here in Utah, I was advised to take my case to the Attorney General of Utah, Mark Shurtleff, because in his words, “Bank of America has become the poster child for how not to handle foreclosure procedures.”  I have also copied Shurtleff’s office on this letter.

I am writing to inform you that until I hear back from you (is ten days enough time?) I will proceed as advised and bring action against Bank of America through my legal counsel, who is also copied on this letter for specific performance by Bank of America under the letter dated March 30, 2010 (see attached) upon which I have relied.  You can’t treat your customers this way.

Sadly, instead of resolving my loan with a modification to assist me in keeping my home, I am left to hope I am wrong in the assumption I am being victimized.  I still believe we can resolve the matter amicably.  However, I assure you I will not become another mortgage foreclosure statistic under these specious circumstances without some clarification I hope will be forthcoming.

I have relied upon your representations under the “Making Home Affordable” program.  I will herewith resist any and all efforts, legally or otherwise, from your office unless or until you make good on a modification offer as originally represented.

Thanks for your immediate attention to this matter.

Sincerely yours,

David B. Goates

Another five months elapsed before I heard from them again. Instead of a real person calling me back, I received yet another form letter advising me my note was in default (and has been for two and half years since this process began), and that I had three options: 1) a short sale for which I would not be held liable for the shortfall if I cooperated; 2) a deed in lieu of foreclosure, also helping me avoid liability for the shortfall; or 3) a rental contract if I wanted to continue living in the home after surrendering the deed, also escaping liability for the shortfall. I wrote back and indicated I wanted to stay in my home and that I would begin making the full payments once again, which I have been doing recently. However, the note is still in default technically and the issue is now compounded because the shortfall has increased as the effects of the negative amortization have increased the outstanding balance.

Nowhere in the communication was there a reference to any specific point I raised in my letter. Days later I received a call from a "customer service representative," who once again read from a script and suggested that I apply online for yet another modification application, stating, "The program has been improved and updated."

So I did as suggested and called the department given to me to remain proactive. Rather than discuss a new modification agreement, however, I was given to a collector whose first question was, "When do you intend to make a payment to bring the account current?" I explained why I was calling, was transferred to another representative, then to another who took down my financial information, and concluded by saying, "Based upon the information you have given me today, I am sorry to inform you that you do not qualify for a mortgage modification at this time, Mr. Goates." I asked for the specific reason(s) why I did not qualify. I was put on hold for five minutes, then the line went dead.

I have decided to tell the story publicly now. There remains little hope of reaching a resolution with anyone at Bank of America. And why, you ask?

My mortgage was originated by a little mortgage loan broker, then it was sold in the secondary market and scooped up by Countrywide, who was acquired by BoA, who is merely the servicer of the mortgage. Because my mortgage is owned now by Fannie Mae as part of a larger securitized mortgage pool that was eventually sold to investors, it is virtually guaranteed that the loss on my mortgage will be covered by Fannie Mae via the bailout money available under TARP. 

The banks too big to fail were saved, but the public relations message of wanting to keep borrowers in their home is little more than a scam. There is virtually no incentive for a bank to work with a borrower. They come out whole by systematically removing all their delinquent borrowers from their homes, bidding their total mortgage balance at sale, then cleaning their books and collecting their reimbursement check from the government. 

Despite a warning shot across the bow of Bank of America's ship last week from Utah Deputy Attorney General John Swallow, warning BoA they were not in compliance with Utah statutes by failing to provide local personnel to be available for face to face meetings with residents of Utah, there is little doubt in my mind that BoA, the country's largest bank will find a way to comply and foreclosures will proceed.

Because of our elected representatives in both houses of Congress in Washington D.C., who picked the winners and losers in their infinite wisdom, why would any bank today choose to work with a borrower if the government is waiting in the wings with an open checkbook to cover their losses?

A Calf's Tail

"So I said to Barack, I knew Abe Lincoln, and you ain't no Abe Lincoln!"

On this Presidents Day weekend, language used by politicians is worthy of comment.

We used to observe Lincoln's birthday on February 12th and then Washington's on the 22nd. Wouldn't you know it was the commercialization of their birthdays that prompted a change? Led by automobile dealers in the late 1980s, their need for a long weekend in which to hold a sale is what eventually produced "Presidents Day." It splits the goalposts between Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays and gives us three days and a shopping weekend mid-winter. Now it's not just those two we cite, but every president.

President Bill Clinton

I'm always fascinated with what presidents say and have said. Perhaps the most famous use of language and how it could be parsed was Bill Clinton's lamentable, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Or when questioned under oath, his "That depends on what your definition of 'is' is." I'm almost certain Bill Clinton said some things that are far more astute than those two statements, but they will forever be attached to him as the most memorable.

Jimmy Carter had a memorable quote along those lines long before Bill Clinton acted upon his thoughts and temptations, however. Carter once gave an interview for Playboy Magazine, in which he famously said, "I've looked on many women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times. God knows I will do this and forgives me."

President Jimmy Carter

No matter what their political enemies may say, most U.S. Presidents have an abiding love for this country, its heritage and its values. Carter underscores that idea with this statement: "The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself -- always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity."

Three years into his failed presidency he was on national television giving what later came to be known as his "Crisis in Confidence" or "malaise" speech in which he said, "I promised you a President who is not isolated from the people, who feels your pain, and who shares your dreams and who draws his strength and his wisdom from you."

Then along came Ronald Reagan who asked voters a simple question, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" They went for Reagan in a landslide election a year later in 1980.

Lincoln Memorial, Washington D.C.

There's a story attributed to Abraham Lincoln, when he was faced with some thorny issues. He would ask his opponent who thought a question could be settled with a twist of language or a slight abuse of power, "How many legs would a dog have, if we called the dog’s tail, a leg?" Confident of simple math, Lincoln's opponent would respond, "Five,” to which Lincoln would respond, "No, calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.”

The genesis of that story is interesting. Because it has been so widely quoted, most have assumed the use of the dog in the metaphor is accurate, but I found a source this morning that is the most credible I've seen in print. This source contends beginning on page 241, continuing into page 242, that the animal was actually a calf and not a dog.

Here's the source for the quote: Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by distinguished men of his time / collected and edited by Allen Thorndike Rice (1853-1889). New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1909. The University of Michigan has the entire text on-line, in the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, an on-line source whose whole text is searchable.

President George Washington

George Washington, hailed as the Father of our Country by his peers, and fully aware that every move he made was being logged into the history books for future generations, observed, "I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent."

Knowing there would have been no agreement on the Constitution without leaving the question of slavery untouched and having to pragmatically kick the question down the road for another generation of Americans to deal with, Washington lamented:  "I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery."

President Ronald W. Reagan

Ronald Reagan, recently confirmed once again by American citizens (as he has been for the last twelve years in eight different polls) as the "greatest president in U.S. history," left many memorable quotes in the history books. This is one of my favorites: "Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have."

Reagan recognized, as few ever have, where the horsepower behind America's economic engine comes from: "Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States."

Ronald Reagan was always warning about the fragility of our heritage as free people: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

Reagan was the people's president. He had an uncanny ability to tap into their psyche and he routinely used his sense of humor to poke fun at the politicians we love to hate. This is only one of his many gems:  "It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."

President John Adams

Readers of this page will understand my affection for John Adams, who said, "Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society."

In his defense argument of the soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre in 1770, where his clients were acquitted, Adams famously observed, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

To all the bloggers in our enlightened age, Adams would say, "Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."

Like most of the founders, John Adams had a reverence and a complete awareness of what they were creating in the American experiment. Lest we forget in our day, he reminds us, "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."

President George W. Bush

In more recent years as the politicians have sparred, criticized and lampooned (get ready, it's coming again soon in the run up to the 2012 election), it was refreshing to hear George W. Bush stand down: "I just didn't want to get out there anymore; I didn't want to get back into what I call 'the swamp.' And the other reason why is I don't think it's good for the presidency for a former president to be opining about his successor. President Obama's got plenty of critics - and I'm just not gonna be one."

President John F. Kennedy was inspirational in so many ways. As a young man I loved reading his Profiles in Courage compilation. He reminds us, "A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten."

President John F. Kennedy

It was Kennedy who offered the unforgettable line in his first inaugural, "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Kennedy is credited with "breaking through" the unspoken barrier of religious affiliation as a litmus test for presidential candidates when he asserted, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be a Catholic."

No matter what your political affiliation or persuasion might be, you can rest assured of one thing: Presidents of the United States of America generally do what they believe in their hearts is the best course for America. Recently, Bill O'Reilly, the number one rated cable talker in America these days, interviewed both former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama. He came away with the surprising conclusion that each man sincerely believed he was right, even though their policies could not be more diametrically opposed.

O'Reilly observed:

"But what happens when a person's conviction is wrong? There is no question that Saddam Hussein could have been destroyed by other means. Surely the world is a better place without him, but would most Americans support the Iraq invasion if we could do it all over? I don't think so. In hindsight, the Iraq situation should have been handled by the Air Force and Navy. Saddam's regime could have been strangled without so much American blood.

President Barack Obama

"Things are a bit murkier on the economic front. Since the Obama administration has been in power, the feds have spent an astounding seven trillion dollars. This has left the United States vulnerable in the world marketplace because we need to borrow so much money from nations like China. The massive $14 trillion debt has now become as big a threat as the economic meltdown of three years ago. No matter how you frame the issue, federal spending must be cut back, and Mr. Obama has to know this. But, like Mr. Bush, the president does not regret his controversial policies."

So let's remember the calf's tail when it comes to measuring "truthiness" from politicians on this Presidents Day honoring not just Lincoln and Washington. Just because Bush or Obama calls a calf's tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg after all.

Sometimes the statements politicians write onto the parchment of time must age a bit to be fully understood and appreciated. We celebrated the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan recently. During his presidency he was anything but beloved. People were scared to death about this "cowboy" who had his finger on the trigger of nuclear weapons and didn't seem shy about pulling it as he took on the "Evil Empire." But the one thing he had going for him was his authenticity. He connected with people, even Mikhail Gorbachev eventually. We had to have a bit of perspective as Americans before we embraced Reagan and fully credited him with the end of the Cold War.

Only time and experience will tell the whole "tale" with accuracy.

In the meantime, let us give a wide berth to political "truth" in the here and now and wait upon history to make its judgments someday.

Obama, almost presidential

This is an image I saw today in the aftermath of President Obama's second address to the nation from the Oval Office the other night.  He spoke of turning the page, announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq.

It always struck me as curious at the time President George W. Bush was putting together his cabinet nominees.  I said to anyone who cared at the time that it looked to me like he was preparing to go to war. 

There were all the old familiar names from days gone by -- all the old steady hands on deck, seemingly, to shore up the young and inexperienced new president who had no foreign policy experience.  He had Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet and others with oodles of war and intelligence experience surrounding him.  Maybe it was just the old guard holdovers from his father's administration, but whatever it was I had the unsettled feeling at the time this was a cabinet stacked with military minds.  They somehow picked up the label "neoconservatives." 

In the end, it just meant they were BIG government, BIG business, BIG military spendthrifts who could not constrain their deficits.  It all ended with TARP.  And it opened the fiscal and monetary floodgates.

It was almost as if Bush expected trouble.  Of course, none of us really saw it coming a few months later, but when 9/11/2001 hit, the war team was in place.  Providential, lucky or planned, whichever it was, it was a team prepared for war.  The inevitability of their war mission was seemingly destined before its eventuality emerged on that fateful day.  The Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war was born.  If they were suspected of having evil intentions against us, we were justified in going after them.

It seems now as if it were almost tempting fate when George W. Bush, donning his flight suit and contrary to the advice of some of his advisors, climbed into a jet and then sat in the second seat as the pilot landed on the banner draped USS Abraham Lincoln declaring "Mission Accomplished."  It was a great photo op, no doubt about it.  Let's just say it was a little premature and leave it at that. 

The word "victory" was tossed about freely without reservation.

Speeches were made that day aboard the massive carrier.  America's military greatness had been on full display from the moment war was declared on Iraq and the first bombs were dropped on Baghdad in what got top billing on cable news networks beaming their signals across the globe as "shock and awe." 

Over and over again as the images rolled across the screen we were being told the bombs were not doing harm to the civilian population because of their laser-like precision.  Critical infrastructure targets were being systematically taken down one by one.  And the reconstruction of that society continues to this day and will for years beyond. 

This was all in reaction to Saddam Hussein's belligerence.  He defied the world community.  We all believed he had weapons of mass destruction.  Everyone did.  Colin Powell, ever the obedient warrior, was marched out in front of the United Nations Security Council with satellite reconnaissance photos to make the case that war against Iraq was not only necessary but essential for the freedom of the world.

It has been a long, sad chapter in the aftermath of 9/11.  It has been said that presidents don't find their foreign policy until the foreign policy finds them.  So it was, and so shall it ever be.  In an effort to avoid foreign entanglements, it seems, America has a long history of becoming entangled.  Wars fuel economies, but they also drain economies.

Obama said the war in Iraq had cost the United States $1 Trillion, as if to justify his massive domestic spending, now up to $4 Trillion, as a fair offset.  It was needed, we were told again, to rebuild the middle class that had somehow been neglected because of our foreign intrigues.  There is nothing in the current spending spree that is benefitting the middle class.  Please don't take that bait. 

He almost gave George Bush some props for being a patriot, even though they disagreed about the war.  Almost.  He called him on the phone the afternoon of the speech.  Almost an "attaboy." 

He couldn't quite form the words with his lips, "I opposed the surge that brought an end to combat operations, and I was wrong, you guys were right after all." 

He almost said it, but the words got caught in his throat.  But we learned there are patriots who opposed the war as well as those who conducted it. 

There was no acknowledgement  by President Obama that America won in Iraq, that we were noble beyond belief in how we conducted ourselves there, but the troops did get the appreciation of their Commander in Chief and a grateful nation.  We are now safer than we were, and he was the one in 2007 as a sitting Senator who proclaimed there was no one he had spoken to privately who gave the surge even a prayer of succeeding.

It was just so weird.  It kind of resembled presidential leadership, but only almost. 

He didn't claim victory for the valiant troops, or for America, or even for Iraq.  The word "victory" just got stuck in his craw.  He couldn't say it.  Instead, just an end of combat operations and an absence of a surrender ceremony.  Let's just "turn the page." 

Which was kind of like saying we won, but only almost.

He is the Commander in Chief by title, but is he presidential?  Almost.

Political Discourse

Much has been made in recent years of the rancor and bitterness between the two political parties in America. 

George W. Bush promised to reach across the aisle and unite the parties as he had done in Texas while he was governor.  It was much more difficult than he imagined, though some unity was achieved as a result of the country uniting in dramatic fashion for a season following 9/11.  How sad that the precipitating event was the only thing that seemed to drive us together into common ground.  Absent war, attacks from foreign powers on our soil, and a complete economic meltdown, can it ever be achieved again?

Barack Obama also pledged to do the same when he went to Washington in 2009.  Instead of unity, Obama has cast aside every single attempt at uniting and healing the political divide.  He has shoved a political agenda down the throats of unwilling and seemingly unwitting Americans at every turn for eighteen months of total legislative domination.  Neither succeeded in uniting anything except the bitter forces of opposition against themselves.

In point of fact, the political discourse from its founding has always been filled with vitriol and accusations, whether with or without merit.

Don't be too alarmed when people say they wish there weren't so much hatred.  We are polarized as a country, and there is little doubt about it.  Just imagine what the discourse must have been over the slavery issues before, during and after the Civil War. 

Abraham Lincoln, icon that he is today, was villified and publicly attacked again and again during his presidency.  It was merciless and unrelenting.  It seemed he could do nothing right back then.  Today he sits enshrined forevermore in a monument in Washington D.C. befitting the enormity of his transformative powers to bridge the political divide.  It was no small feat. 

Will we ever see it again?  We came close in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.  Now we are bitterly divided again.  The miracle was short-lived to be sure.

All of this has reminded me of the conditions I've read about in the election of 1800, when John Adams, the sitting President was opposed by his Vice President, Thomas Jefferson.  The spirit of party that Jefferson had warned against had taken root and was entrenched in the runup to that election battle.  It was different in those days because the discourse was waged primarily by proxies, and rarely by the candidates themselves.

In Federalist pamphlets and newspapers, Jefferson was decried as a hopeless visionary, a weakling, an intriguer intoxicated with French philosophy, more a Frenchman than an American, and therefore a bad man.  He was accused of favoring states' rights over the Union, charged with infidelity to the Constitution, called a spendthrift and libertine.  In truth, he kept careful notes of his expenditures, but always throughout his life spent more than he brought in, eventually at death owing $100,000 more than the value of his assets. 

In contrast, at death the ever-frugal Adams and his wife Abigail had amassed an estate valued at $100,000.  No one ever faulted Adams as a spendthrift.  Instead, he was seen as a penny-pinching miser and skinflint.

One New York newspaper assured its readers that a Jefferson election would mean civil war.  It was said "the refuse of Europe" would flood the country and threaten the life of "all who love order, peace, virtue, and religion."  Does that sound remotely familiar in today's headlines?

Most amplified of all the charges against Jefferson were the assertions that he was an atheist.  Not only was Jefferson a godless man, the assertions went, he mocked the Christian faith.  The rumors in New England were so absurd that people were hiding family Bibles until the election was over, fearing they would be summarily rounded up and burned if he were elected.  Even Martha Washington was persuaded all this was true, when she told a visiting clergyman she thought Jefferson "one of the most detestable of mankind."

Stories were spread about Jefferson's personal immorality.  The whisper campaign included lumping Jefferson with all southern slave masters who were known to cohabit with their slave women.

Conversely, John Adams didn't fare much better in the campaigning of personal destruction, indicating these smears we witness today are not a modern invention.  Adams was excoriated as a monarchist, more British than American, and therefore a bad man just like Jefferson.  Remember, these were the two diligent and valiant servants of freedom's cause who were dispatched as diplomats to Europe at the same time as Benjamin Franklin.  Neither received much gratitude at the time for their prodigious efforts.

Adams was routinely ridiculed in public as old, addled and toothless.  Truth was that by the time he died at age 91, Adams really had lost nearly all his teeth, but the image was useful to his critics who called him a pacifist.

Timothy Pickering spread the rumor that to secure his reelection Adams had struck a corrupt bargain with the Republicans.  Another story affirmed the bargain had been struck with Jefferson himself.  The kernel of the story was that Adams would throw the election Jefferson's way and then serve as the Vice President.

Adams was also accused of consorting with four mistresses in London.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  When the "news" reached Adams that he had ordered General Pinckney to London to procure the services of the four pretty mistresses, two for Pinckney and two for himself, Adams was amused.  "I do declare upon my honor," he wrote to William Tudor, "if this is true General Pinckney has kept them all for himself and cheated me out of my two."

That wasn't the worst of it.  Many charges against Adams included that he was insane.  It went on and on -- if Jefferson was a Jacobin, a shameless southern libertine, and a "howling" atheist, Adams was a Tory, a vain Yankee scold, and, if truth be known, "quite mad."

It's almost hysterical looking back through the lens of history.  By the Republicans Adams was accused as a warmonger, and berated by the High Federalists as fainthearted in the face of the French.

Jefferson had so distanced himself from Adams as the Vice President that he could be held accountable for nothing in the Adams administration that disappointed, displeased, or infuriated anyone.  Adams got blamed for everything as a result -- new taxes, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the standing army, and a host of other "menaces," or so said Philadelphia's leading newspaper, the Aurora.

The unfair contrasts didn't end there.  Jefferson, the Virginia aristocrat and slave master who lived in a style fit for a prince, as removed from his fellow citizens and their lives as it was possible to be, was hailed as the apostle of liberty, the "Man of the People."  Adams, the former farmer's son who despised slavery and practiced the kind of personal economy and plain living commonly upheld as the American way, was scorned as an aristocrat who, if he could, would enslave the common people just like King George III had done.  Amazing!

It was an old story for Adams in that 1800 election.  He had suffered abuse before from the Jefferson Republicans, but more painful to him personally were the highly personal attacks from the Hamilton Federalists.  Alexander Hamilton threw his political weight into the contest in open opposition to Adams.

In the flurry of scathing criticism, innuendo, slander and falsehoods, with war with the French looming as Adams and his peace commission to France were hard at work to avert another war, there was one gleaming tribute to Adams in the Washington Federalist that more closely typified his life's work:

"Bred in the old school of politics, his principles are founded on the experience of ages, and bid defiance to French flippancies and modern crudities. . . Always great, and though sometimes alone, all weak and personal motives were forgotten in public energy and the security of the sacred liberties of his country. . .  Deeply versed in legal lore, profoundly skilled in political science; joined to the advantage of forty years' unceasing engagement in the turbulent and triumphant scenes, both at home and in Europe, which have marked our history; learned in the language and arts of diplomacy; more conversant with the views, jealousies, resources, and intrigues of Great Britain, France and Holland than any other American; alike aloof to flattery and vulgar ambition, as above all undue control [he has as]. . . his sole object. . . the present freedom and independence of his country and its future glory.  On this solid basis he has attempted to raise a monument of his honest fame."

On Saturday, November 22, 1800, Congress convened for the first time in a joint session in the unfinished Capitol building, and John Adams delivered what he surely knew would be his last speech as President.  He said in part,

"It would be unbecoming the representatives of this nation to assemble for the first time in this solemn temple without looking up to the Supreme Ruler of the universe, and imploring his blessing.
"May this territory be the residence of virtue and happiness!  In this city may that piety and virtue, that wisdom and magnanimity, that constancy and self-government, which adorned the great character whose name it bears, be forever held in veneration!  Here, and throughout our country, may simple manners, pure morals, and true religion flourish forever!"

Despite the bitter political divide of his day, despite the withering criticism and rancor, bitterness and vitriol directed at him personally, John Adams found a way to rise above it all and to speak those conciliatory words before a joint session of a bitterly divided Congress.  What we need today are more noble patriots like John Adams. 

The ensuing years would see Jefferson and Adams reunited in abundant correspondence on a host of history-preserving topics, a happy consequence of noble statesmen rising above the political divide that had separated them earlier.

Adams was sixty-five when he stepped down after that 1800 election, Jefferson a comparatively youthful fifty-seven years old when he assumed the presidency. 

Fate would unite them again in death.  Both died on the same day, July 4th, 1826, true patriots each, a fitting end to a lifetime of devotion to honor, country and freedom.  Their legacy is ours if we will claim it for our own.  Like all politicians, neither was perfect, both had flaws, but neither retreated in their duty.

I know this will come off as idealistic and overly optimistic, but it won't sound unlike the conciliatory note sounded by John Adams in his farewell speech.  If men in public life endowed with the public trust could rise above political differences and bitter discourse then, surely they can do it again in our day.

Let us pray for that happy result without another 9/11.

Remember Tariq Aziz?

The once much-visible spokesman for the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq made the headlines today. 

In the stranger-than-strange category Aziz now is begging for America to stay the course in his homeland, after earlier claiming it was America and Great Britain that ruined it.

"Bush and Blair lied intentionally. They were both pro-Zionist," claimed Aziz. "They wanted to destroy Iraq for the sake of Israel, not for the sake of the US and Britain."

Really? I thought it was because George W. Bush was avenging his father's "unfinished war" there -- at least that's what everybody else said at the time.

Aziz has a perhaps surprising request of the current US commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama, whom he initially welcomed as a clean break from George W. Bush. Aziz now wants the occupation of Iraq to continue indefinitely.

"He cannot leave us like this. He is leaving Iraq to the wolves," he said. "When you make a mistake you need to correct a mistake, not leave Iraq to its death."

Some incredibly contradictory statements (I'm trying to be kind) came out of that man's mouth when he was a Saddam Hussein loyalist and his chief spokesman. . .

But honestly, did you ever think he'd say that?