Say it ain’t so, Joe! Is this what they mean by bi-partisanship? Call me a purist, but when I see all the Democrats go one way and all the Republicans go the opposite way, it looks like bi-partisanship as usual. It is hard to believe that there isn’t at least one Democrat who agrees with Republicans or one Republican who agrees with the Democrats. Sure, it represents a certain kind of loyalty, but, loyalty to party, not loyalty to American citizens.

Too much of the public rhetoric is exaggerated by defining the Obama economic stimulus bill in extreme terms. Is it a spending bill? Is it a stimulus bill? Is it an economic recovery bill? Is it a tax cut? The answer to all – Yes! 40% of the bill is tax cuts and 60% is in spending. All of it is geared toward economic recovery. There is an emerging question about whether we need some kind of government intervention right now. Most agree that we do. Most also agree that whatever we do may work or may not work. So bring on the debate. Let’s talk about facts. That’s what a debate is all about. Once the debate is complete, though, let’s agree to get behind the best plan we can develop. An economic bill that is supported by all is more likely to work than one that is being sniped at by a minority party, in this case, the Republicans.

So, why? Why do the naysayers do it? I believe that it is a vote for failure. By taking the side of the defeated opposition, politicians take cover behind bi-partisan games. If they are proven wrong, no one will notice as they “spin” their way out. On the other hand, if their objections are vindicated by failure of a bill, if they are right, they can revert to the “ITYS” argument. The ITYS argument is “I told you so.” ITYS comes in handy when it’s time to campaign for re-election. Think about that, bipartisanship supports our economic failure.

There’s something very wrong with that as a strategy? It’s so much easier to take credit by spinning “I was wrong” into “I was almost right” therefore, “I must be right” than to have to stand on principle and risk having to admit to a mistake later on. The adage, “success has a thousand parents; failure is an orphan” comes to mind. By hiding behind bipartisanship, our elected representatives can always be the parents of success. Most Americans are responsible for their decisions and live with the consequences. They have a right to expect the same standard from the Congress and Senate.

Republicans and Democrats alike have pledged to work together on our behalf. While ITYS makes for fancy politics, it is not a responsible way to resolve the serious economic problems that face our country.

“Only” is a word that generally means, it’s not happening to me.  For example, He only has the flu or it only costs $100.   If you don’t have the flu or you don’t have to spend $100 of your own money, “only” seems and sounds plausible.  If, on the other hand, you’re having a difficult time breathing at night because your sinuses are blocked or have to buy a new pair of shoes, it is more than only.  It’s your reality.

“If only” is also misleading because when the words are spoken, it sounds as if something might happen, as in, if only it I had the time, I’d call my mother.  Again, reality says that there will not be enough time.  So you may as well have said, I don’t have time to call my mother.  It’s a nice way of letting ourselves off the hook for neglecting to do something we know we should do.

Consulting my dictionary, I found the following to describe “only”: Were it not that / except that / but.  Of course, “only” can also mean exclusive or one of a kind, as in the Hope diamond is the only one of its kind.

I was taught early in life to pay close attention to words.  They are powerful and carry meaning.  Only, as an exclusive is very powerful.  Unfortunately, it becomes watered down when used in the other forms of you will pay only or if only. 

Sometimes the word is used deliberately to imply that the situation is less important than it might if compared to a far worse situation.  The American automotive bailout request is a case in point.  We are told that this request for twenty five billion dollars is another “only” situation because it is a small amount when compared to the much larger multi-billion dollar figure being given to the bankers who have run the world economy into the ground.   Call me crazy, but I think that any number with nine zeros after it exceeds the legitimacy of the word, “only.”  It makes me think that “if only” I had kept my savings under my mattress instead of entrusting it to the knuckleheads that we hold up as business gurus, I would have a lot more of it than I do after the calamity of the past two months.

So the next time someone offers you solace, beware of the word only.  The reality is that if only they had acted more responsibly and less greedily, I would not be left with only half of what I had before this all happened.  My home is now worth only half of what it was.  My savings are only two thirds of what they were worth three months ago.  My chances of recouping my losses are only as good as the judgment of the guys responsible for fixing this whole mess who are (switching to the other definition) the only ones responsible for causing it to begin with.  So, if only we can all be patient, things might turn out all right, and we will lose only a small fraction of our savings – this compared to the far worse possibility of losing everything we have worked for all of our working lives.  If only things were different . . .

I saw a homeless panhandler yesterday, sitting on the sidewalk.  Instinctively, I reached in my pocket to see if I had some change or a dollar, as it is my Catholic school learned belief that we should share with those who are less fortunate.  As I walked closer to the man, I noticed that he was looking at a handful of change which he seemed to be counting.  The lyrics to a song immediately flashed through my mind, “You don’t count your money, when you’re sitting at the table.  There’ll be time enough for counting when the dealing’s done.”   

My mind segued to last week’s meeting on Capitol Hill, when automotive CEO’s who had arrived in Washington, D.C. in private jets, hats-in-hand, seeking tax dollars for their beleaguered companies.  So much in life is about timing.  The change counter did not get my dollar and the CEO’s didn’t get their money either.

The homeless man will see another day to panhandle, and the CEO’s will get their second chance with Congress on December 1^st.  So I have some advice for the auto execs. 

Develop a little sensitivity, guys!  Next week, try a different approach.  Try to come down from your lofty heights to understand what the real world is all about.  First of all, jettison the three corporate planes for a day.  Surely, you can make a little time for travel in exchange for twenty five billion dollars of our money.  You might consider a “jet-pool” to Washington.  After all, you’re all coming from the same city.  Travel together!  Or, consider a downgrade to first-class seats on a commercial carrier.  Or, (perish the thought!), fly coach like the rest of us have to do.  Get a feel for what it’s like for your prospective customers, waiting in line for TSA, going through security checks with your shoes and jackets stacked in a plastic tray, feeling, ridiculously enough, like a suspected terrorist.  Experience the pleasure of having a stranger search your baggage for suspected contraband.

If this doesn’t appeal, I have an even better idea.  You know those cars that you’re making for us taxpayers who will pay the bill for your bailout request?  How about driving one of those to your meeting?

It may sound crazy to you.  But consider driving a Chevy Cobalt, Ford Focus, or Chrysler mini-van from Detroit to D.C.  If your cars are as good as you say they are in your advertising campaigns, you’ll enjoy a luxurious 10-hour drive.  You might even begin to develop a clue, as to the need for fuel-efficient cars as you stop to fill the gas tank along the way!  Maybe you’ll begin to understand why so many Americans are reluctantly choosing Toyotas and Hondas instead of your products! 

Before you leave Detroit for your trip, here’s another thought.  Try to remember, if you can, what it was like when you asked your parents for a handout.  They probably required an explanation for why you needed the money and how you would repay it. 

Get real!  Make a plan!  It may sound wild to you, but most of us know that when asking for money, the lender usually wants to know why.  I do.  What are you going to do with twenty five billion dollars?  That’s billion – NINE ZEROS!  It looks like this – $25,000,000,000.  I wouldn’t ask for $100 without an explanation and that’s only two zeros.

Consider this.  How about bringing some of your employees along with you?  The UAW might bolster your case, as they detail the positive effects a government loan will have on their members.  You might learn something too.  Finally, if congress turns you down, do not, I repeat, do not go back home and fire another few thousand workers. It makes you look uncaring.  Wait a week or two before hatcheting workers from the payroll.  Try taking a hit on your own lucrative compensation packages.

Look, I favor government loans for American car companies if it will help keep them alive.  I favor jobs for American workers.  I favor making quality fuel-efficient American cars.  I favor doing all we can to get through this current crisis, even if it means sacrifice on my part now for the sake of my children’s and grandchildren’s futures.  Last week I heard a Republican congressman say that a loan to carmakers is, as he put it, “just delaying the inevitable.”  It struck me that eating is delaying the inevitable.  We’re all going to die anyway.  So why bother eating?  It only keeps us alive longer and delays the inevitable. 

People ask me why I give money to beggars on the street (or CEO’s in Armani suits).  They say things like, “Why are you doing that?  They’ll use the money for drugs or cheap wine” (or corporate jets or big bonuses).  Maybe they’re right, maybe not.  It’s not up to me to decide if they need food or bus-fare or drugs (or delaying the inevitable).  I do it because I should and it’s MY MONEY.  It reminds me that, given other circumstances, I could be the homeless man (or unemployed auto-worker).  It reminds me that we are all in this together and that what happens to one of us happens to all of us. 

So, Mr. CEO in your Armani suit, get it right next time.  It’s not about you.  It’s about all of us!

There’s Obamanomics, Obamamania, no-drama-Obama, maybe others that I miss here, and probably more Obama- nyms to come as the country transitions.  So I offer another – Obamdarity – a word to describe the new easier flow of communication between whites and blacks.  

Barack Obama was elected by a plurality that included a majority of whites like me, who grew up through the second half of the century and are proud of what we’ve done in this election.  Yes, of course, his domestic and foreign policy positions were preferable for many voters.  That is what got him elected.  But once the results were in and the world reacted, the significance of what we Americans had done was overwhelmingly apparent.  As this awareness grows, a new era of racial communication is emerging.

Two days after the election, I overheard part of a conversation between two African American men.  The first man said, “What’s hap’nin, my brother?”  The other responded, “Obama, man!” to which the first repeated, “Obama.”  It was clear that the one word, “Obama”, carried meaning beyond politics.  Obama means we have overcome and we can change.  This subtle message is creeping into our national psyche.

At first, I thought I noticed a softening of the inherent fear that exists between us, blacks and whites, on the streets. 

I saw a black man standing in the street yelling the word to passers-by, “Obama.”  That was all – nothing else – just “Obama.”  When he turned to me, he repeated it, “Obama.”  When I gave my thumbs-up and repeated, “Obama”, he joined me on the sidewalk where we talked about the election and what it meant to us.

Last week, a black man approached me, directly, smiling.  He said “Obama”, to which I responded, “Obama.”  We walked on in our own directions, satisfied that bond existed between us.

Yesterday, I was wearing an “Obama – Yes We Did” button as I walked in downtown San Francisco.  A brother standing next to me, waiting to cross at a light, strained to see the button and when he read it, he smiled at me and said, “Obama,” to which I responded, “Obama.”  As we crossed the street together, we talked briefly, and then parted smiling and shaking hands.

We are stepping across barriers of disconnection and fear into what can be an era of solidarity between blacks and whites or “Obamdarity.”   We’ve been through false starts before on this road to racial understanding.  We can seize this opportunity if we decide to.  I have.

Dave Cunningham / November 16, 2008

Like all complex problems, there are no simple solutions to the crisis in the U.S. auto industry.  It is too easy to say, “Let the market drive itself.  Do not throw good money after bad with government intervention.”  It’s also an oversimplification to say that help to the industry is a necessity to save our manufacturing base as well as an untold number of jobs.  Both arguments have merit.  Both are right and both are wrong.  Let’s look at it more closely.

Some argue that in this free market economy, our success for the past sixty years relied upon a “survival of the fittest” philosophy that supports constructive competition and a laissez-faire philosophy.  This brings ever-improving products to consumers.  For example,  competition from foreign car makers has forced improvements among Detroit’s Big-Three.  Competition in a free-market is fundamental, and we should avoid doing anything to undermine it.

Yet, for decades the U. S. has enjoyed unprecedented economic growth based on the work ethic and purchasing power of a strong middle class.  As we lose jobs in this country, we also forfeit the purchasing power represented by a middle class that can afford to buy the cars they produce.  We must not allow this trend to continue. Therefore, the only viable solution is in government loans to our auto industry to support the middle class. 

But, some would argue that it is better to allow the market to self-correct through the path of  Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Reorganization processes.  This will force the changes necessary to re-create an industry that can compete successfully in both the U.S. and world markets.  Changes likely to occur include new management, new boards of directors, and new agreements with strong unions.

However, we can’t afford to add another painful economic downturn at a time when domestic and worldwide economies are already struggling.  We also can’t wait the six to eighteen months it will take to get through a bankruptcy.  Consider this –  who would buy a car from a company in bankruptcy?  A new car is a major purchase which includes, not only the shiny new vehicle, but service after the sale. The fear of limited or no service at all would push car buyers to consider alternatives like Honda and Toyota.

I propose a best approach which incorporates the positives and minimizes the negatives from both sides of the debate.

We learned from recent mistakes made with the government bank bailout.  Billions of tax dollars went out with unclear expectations of how they’d be spent.   We know now that the banks are not making the stimulus business loans we were promised.  In my proposed plan we will not repeat this mistake.

So, before government commits any funding, the car makers will provide a comprehensive business plan outlining what they will do with our money.  The plan will be transparent to all and will include projected benchmarks for market share growth including target dates.  It will include a specific payback plan including dollar amounts and due dates.

Considering management change, Einstein’s definition of insanity, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,”  is applicable.  Auto makers will not solve problems using the same kind of thinking that created them to begin with. 

The business plan that I require for funding must include succession plans for choosing new management with new ideas. These will be benchmarked, time specific.  They will include re-examination of the industry to determine the skill sets needed over the next twenty years to make U.S. carmakers  dynamic and competitive.  

Plans will also require use of government funds for “green” initiatives like using enviro-friendly materials and recycling old cars into new products.  These will coincidentally create new business opportunities and jobs for Americans.

Further, my plan restricts big bonus payouts to executives.  There is no reason to reward failed performance with cash rewards paid indirectly by taxpayers. 

During his campaign and since the election, Barack Obama has committed his presidency to strengthening the middle class.  My plan supports this with bailout dollars contingent upon commitments from the car makers to maintain constructive talks with trade-unions to include them in the process.  This provision supports the maintenance of a middle class with good jobs, good incomes and, consequently, the ability to buy the cars they make.

Let’s remember that oversight will be key to obtaining a return on this taxpayer investment.  We need a smart business person with political skills to represent taxpayer interests.  I suggest Mitt Romney for this job.  He knows business.  He knows the Michigan auto culture.  He’s been a governor.  He has credibility in industry and government.  He will have the confidence of Michiganders.

In closing, here’s an encouraging thought. I was surprised to learn recently that the best selling car in the world is not Toyota or Honda.  It is Chevrolet.  We can rebuild our car industry and support our middle class around strong brands like this one.  This is not the time for one economic purist to prevail over another.  We will succeed with collaboration among all the people with the best ideas.

But don’t take it personally. 

This was the advice I received earlier today when some of my writing was rejected by a publisher. “Don’t take it personally.”  What an interesting phrase.  I can recall so many times during my sales career, I heard the same advice.  “We know that you have spent considerable time and money working with our staff.  But we’ve decided to go with your competitor. Don’t take it personally because we still like you better.”

What an insensitive thing to say to someone who is, at the moment those words are spoken, taking something very personally! 

Do any of these sound familiar?

Honey, I know we’ve been together for “X” months or “X” years.  I’ve found someone new.  She’s prettier than you or he’s wealthier than you.  So I’ll be moving on.  But don’t take it personally.

I know that you’ve worked here for fifteen years and that just a few months ago you received a positive performance appraisal and a small raise, but we’re letting you go.  Don’t take it personally.

Sure you ran a great campaign and thousands of people voted for you.  But you lost.  Don’t take it personally.

Yes, you’ve been training all your life to run in the Marathon.  But you didn’t qualify.  Don’t be upset.  There’s no need to take it personally.

You were a wonderful daughter who gave up the best years of your life to care for mom.  But she left her money to your brother.  Don’t take it personally!

It seems like such a sensible thing to say, “Don’t take it personally.” When you’re on the receiving end of this advice, it almost makes sense.  Some part of you wants to agree even though your insides are raw.  “Yeah, right, I think I’ll ignore my feelings and nurture a nice ulcer in my gut instead.  After all I don’t want to be taking myself personally.”

For anyone who has ever uttered the “DTIP” phrase, listen up!  When you’re hurting, it’s personal!  Got it?  Good!  Stop saying it!

After too many years of too many people saying, too many times, “DTIP”, I have concluded that these words apply more to the speaker than to the receiver.  For example, “listen pal, I am not feeling your pain and I really don’t want to feel your pain because I do not take this personally in any way.  So how about showing me some consideration too and “DTIP.”

There are other better choices.  They’re called empathy and sympathy.  Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t advocate encouraging someone to wallow in their own self pity.  But there’s nothing wrong with acknowledging another person’s predicament. 

The next time you find yourself ready to say the “DTIP” phrase, try this instead, “Gosh, you must feel terrible about  . . . .” (then name it, whatever it is).  Try listening to the other person for a minute or two.  Then say something like, “I’m sorry this happened to you.”  

I like the adage, “people don’t care what you know until they know that you care.”  This is applicable in times like these. 

Empathy can be transformative, since most of us just want to be acknowledged.  Once that happens, the circumstances that were so stressful seem less important.  They begin to dissipate and guess what!  It isn’t personal any more. 

Having been a proponent and practitioner of Macrobiotics¹ for the past five years, I was pleased and surprised to read an editorial in the New York Times yesterday entitled, “The Protein Pyramid.”²   Although there has been much written about meat consumption with regard to its effects on the environment, this is the first time I have seen it in a widely read mainstream publication.  So the word is getting out, albeit slowly.

The editorial states, “Per capita meat consumption more than doubled over the past half-century as the global economy expanded. It is expected to double again by 2050.”  It goes on to suggest that the food source for this growth is “very small fish harvested from the ocean and ground into meal and pressed into oil.”  The article concludes that farm animals and, indirectly, humans who eat farm animals, are competing for food directly with aquatic species that depend on those forage fish for their existence, which speaks to the need for us humans to be mindful of what we eat and its long term effects on the environment.

In a presentation, this past summer, Ms. Laura Stec³, a recognized expert and spokesperson regarding the effects of meat (specifically beef production and consumption) on the environment, pointed out that “18% of greenhouse gasses come from cattle in the form of methane gas.”  This is an astounding number.  When you consider, as she stated, “Methane gas is 23 times more destructive as a greenhouse gas than CO^2”, it is even more noteworthy.

I am not a hand-wringing proponent of vegetarianism or veganism, and I do occasionally enjoy a well-grilled steak.  That being said, we can all see that this type of data points to the necessity of re-examining the intertwined relationship of our food sources, our personal health, and our environment.  If we can explore and develop new ways of eating while protecting our planet, we should.

Beyond the foregoing, there are other significant reasons why it is time to examine our food choices and consider alternatives.  One among these is health.  It has been documented that in the U.S. today 2/3^rds of our population is considered overweight, including 30% of our children.  This is a huge red flag that can not be ignored in light of increasing healthcare costs.  If we can become a healthier country by changing our eating habits, healthcare costs will decrease as well.  This savings will spill over to the rest of the economy, positively affecting job and domestic business growth.

Another economic consideration emerges as we experience increasing food costs throughout the world.  The last time I looked, quality beef costs were running between $11 and $20 per pound.  Comparing this to the cost of bulk beans like black-eyed peas, garbanzo or kidney beans, among others, at only $1.50 – $2.00 per pound, the cost decision is clear.  It is less expensive to obtain our protein requirements from non-meat alternatives.

We know that macrobiotics is often considered a diet for sick people because so many have turned to it after they became sick.  This decision has often proven to be a positive catalyst toward their improved health.  Therefore, it does not take “Einsteinium genius” to conclude that if it is beneficial for those with impaired health, it is also good for those with good health. 

When you look at the big picture—the environment, individual health, increasing food costs worldwide, it makes sense to look at alternatives.  Mainstream attention to this subject, like the NY Times article will bring needed focus to this important topic.

¹ Macrobiotics  

“A way of eating that focuses on locally grown seasonal foods that are energetically balanced, according to holistic principles”, – J.S. Ong, Omkari Wholistic Living / www.omkariwholisticliving.com

² “The Protein Pyramid.”

Link to NY Times editorial:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/editorials/index.html?offset=0&s=newest

³ Laura Stec

Link to web site::

http://www.laurastec.com/

How about Al Gore for Secretary of Energy?  No.  He won’t take it.  It would be a step down for him.  He was the vice-president.  How could he accept the seeming demotion? 

 Would he be a great choice, possibly the best choice, for the job?  Yes, no doubt! He has more credibility around the world than anyone.  Imagine this: Gore speaks out on global warming and the need to develop alternative energy resources, standing side-by-side with our internationally lauded leader, President Obama.  What world leader would not listen?  How much credibility would this bring to the cause, the message, the urgency?  But, as I said, he won’t take it.  It would be a step down.  He was the vice-president.  How could he accept a lesser role?

So, what would it take to make this happen?  After sitting at the table for four years as vice-president, a cabinet post might not be prestigious enough.  Although I don’t overlook Gore’s passion and commitment to the cause, let’s face it, he already has a worldwide audience equal to or of greater influence than he’d have as just another cabinet member.

Maybe the way forward would be to change the game!  President Obama could nominate a former Vice-President, United States Senator, Noble Peace Prize and Academy Award winning, renowned world spokesman on global warming and the environment to head up a new government agency with national authority, similar in power and scope to Homeland Security.  It could be called the U.S Environmental Safety and Renewal Agency. 

 Obama could grant unprecedented authority and influence over the new organization, which would combine the current Department of Energy and a newly created Department of Renewable Energy Development, a Department of Energy Infrastructure Development, and a U.S. Carbon Bank, the latter of which would oversee and control carbon vouchers for American industry.

To maintain his stature as a world leader on the environment, Gore could be appointed the first United States Ambassador for Environmental Safety and Renewal.  In this capacity, he would become the official voice of America on environmental issues, taking the lead for the U.S. at forums like the Kyoto treaty meetings in Copenhagen next year.

No one but Barack Obama could pull this off because he is not afraid of working with strong personalities.  The proof of this has been demonstrated in choosing Joseph Biden for his vice-president. He is a leader who welcomes and sees value in civil dissent and disagreement.  I think that Biden and Gore will be joined, shortly, by other strong, smart people on the Obama team.

The bottom line on the environment is that we in the U.S. have to do something sooner rather than later.  We need capable competent leadership and a strong voice to make it happen.  Gore can be that leader, that voice.  In addition, since environmental issues transcend or should transcend international politics, Al Gore is the one person who can work with world leaders to coalesce around sound realistic plans to preserve planet earth for all the worlds’ citizens.

I hope that this idea is already receiving serious consideration among the Obama transition team.

We elected Barack Obama, an African American.  Like others, I am celebrating this victory over racism.  Each of us has our stories and experiences that brought us to Tuesday’s historic American decision.  I, too, have been introspective about my experiences. 

Growing up in the second half of the 20^th century, I was raised to respect all people.  I watched the civil rights struggle of the 60’s & 70’s from a distance.  Although I agreed that change was necessary, I didn’t see myself as a part of the problem.

Later, as a father to three young children, I taught them what I thought, regarding racial prejudice and bigotry.  What I taught them was that racial prejudice and bigotry were wrong and played no part in our lives.  Eventually, I was pleased when they would bring home friends of another race, seemingly, without regard to their outer differences.  I thought I was doing okay on this issue.  I wasn’t part of the problem.

Years later, I remember that, as a young corporate sales manager, I had talked at home about performance issues I was experiencing with an employee who reported to me.  Over months, the difficulties grew and resulted in accusations of racial discrimination on my part.  Although they were eventually proven to be unfounded, my true vindication came from my then young 12-year old daughter who said to me, “In all the times you have talked about your employee and all the trouble you were having, you never mentioned that the person was black.”

[The foregoing quote was paraphrased to avoid names and references that might be harmful to others]

The eventual judgment of my innocence by the ACLU pales in comparison to my daughter’s words.  Once again, I was assured, I was not part of the problem.

Today, I called Tom, my old friend from those days, an African American with whom I had worked as his subordinate and eventually as management peers.  We talked about the election and about its meaning to us and to the country.

After we talked, I recalled an incident at a National Sales Meeting long ago.  Fred, an African American co-worker, was mistaken for the porter in the men’s room, by a white employee.  Fred acted out in an old fashioned minstrel-show-type “shuck-and-jive”, to save face for both of them.   I thought it was funny.  As I recounted the story to my friend, Tom, back in our suite, he explained to me why it was not funny and further, that I owed an apology to Fred, which I humbly and respectfully offered and which he graciously accepted.

I was not aware of my own racial insensitivity.  My friend Tom stepped up to help me learn.  I feel moved as I write this.  I am ashamed of my behavior and blessed to have had a friend who was willing to call me on it.  For the first time, I saw that I was part of the problem.

My point is that often, racism is subtle.  It is not intentional or malicious.  It can be passive, seemingly benign.  For this reason, it is so important that we take advantage of opportunities to talk about our differences. 

In his March 18, 2008 “More Perfect Union” speech, then candidate Obama said:

“This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years . . .  But I have asserted a firm conviction – a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people – that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.”

It has been said that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.  As we celebrate our national decision, let’s endeavor to be, mindfully, part of the solution.

__________________________________________________________________

Link to text of Obama’s More Perfect Union speech:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/03/18/text-of-obamas-speech-a-more-perfect-union/

Like many Americans, last night I watched the election results with excitement.  Unlike most Americans, I was tallying the results on my spreadsheet, comparing my projections with the actual outcomes.  I was right on all but four states.  Having always believed that, “almost only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades,” I am disappointed in my misjudgments.

I surprised myself with my emotional response to our election of an African American candidate.  In my fifty-nine years, I have witnessed encouraging changes in black-white relations in the US.  But until about a year ago, I didn’t think I’d see this in my lifetime.  Even as President-elect Obama continued to close in on victory, I continued to have my doubts.  I wondered, still, if, in the final outcome, in the privacy of the voting booth, white people would exercise covert racism by voting for a white candidate.  Thankfully, my doubts were not justified.  So I am proud.  Proud of what?

I am proud that, as a nation, we chose principal over prejudice.  Although the latter exists, it was secondary to the overwhelming choices made by voters of all kinds, young/old, black/white, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American. 

I have seen the struggle of blacks from a distance and experienced the struggle of whites, as we continued to move forward with a moral belief in equality for all and a Constitutional commitment to the same.  We struggled with giving up entrenched values in favor of what we knew was right.  We supported a Civil Rights movement over the past 48 years, knowing that we should have to give up some of our own privileges to accommodate needed change.  We argued, debated, fought, and litigated. 

In our private conversations (whites-to-whites and blacks-to-blacks), we nurtured our suspicions and disillusionment.  We supported equal opportunity while resisting favoritism and quotas.  We opened our work places to diversity while moving to segregated neighborhoods.   We were living a paradox, at once, wanting what we knew to be right while fearing the changes it might bring.

We have come a long way.

Late last evening, I called Fred, a long-time African American friend.  We have been fortunate to have opened and maintained a cautious conversation of black-white race relations.  We both came to adulthood in the era of Martin Luther King and the peace marches.  We saw the race riots and the destruction that came with them.  We saw the acceleration of “white flight” from cities to suburbs.  I learned about “driving-while-back” arrests in white communities.  He learned how to accommodate.  I learned the reality of inherent white-privilege.  He learned how to fit in and make it work for him.  We both developed a sensitivity and attempt at understanding each other.  

I called him last night because I knew and know that our struggle to create a new foundation had been completed.  We had moved forward in a substantial way that can not be reversed.  As with any foundation, there is still much building to do.  But I am so proud of what we have done so far to lay this significant groundwork.

Freddie told me he was trying to explain to his grandson the meaning of what had happened, the civil rights struggles, the race hangings, the jailings, the black slavery of only 150 years ago.  “He doesn’t get it,” he told me.  I related to him a similar story as my daughter, earlier this week, tried to explain to her daughter, that we were going to elect an African American president.  My granddaughter saw nothing unusual or striking about this news.  Isn’t it great that slowly, generation by generation, we have moved our collective national consciousness from knowing that change was necessary to taking that change for granted?

When I was a little boy, my Mom used to tell me that colored people (a term that later fell into disdain) were just as good as we were.  That was the beginning of my education about racism.  Later, while in college in the late 60’s, I began to understand the need for change through personal dialog with black classmates.   Soon, as a young father, I did my best to teach my children that we are all the same.  Thankfully, it is their generation that openly and without reservation, seized upon, and in many cases, led the new direction we have chosen.  I and many of my generation can be proud that we began to erase the polarizing ideas that had dominated our parents’ thinking and to some extent, still, our own.  We chose the high road, passed the baton to our children and they ran with it.  Their children, in turn, simply accept as normal, what my friend, Fred and I still see as almost revolutionary. 

We will have a black family living in the White House.  The whole world will look at the United States differently.  We have done what most countries will never be able to do.  We have risen above ethnicity, race-bias, ignorance and existing prejudices to raise our national consciousness to a new, unprecedented level.

I am so proud of the part, though small, that I have played.  The bar has been irretrievably raised for all Americans.  Thankfully, we can never go back to where we were.  As Barack Obama said in his victory speech last night, “This was the moment – this was the time – when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.”  Our country will never be the same.