PeterGlenshaw.com

What Happened to Democrats in Massachusetts Should Stay in Massachusetts if....

1. Democrats offer better candidates than Martha Coakley.  

As brilliant and scheming as she was in securing the Democratic nomination, Coakley bombed in the general campaign.  She did not campaign the entire of month of December (shades of former MA governor and Democratic presidential nominee Michael Dukakis taking Sundays off during the general election in 1988), brazenly confused Curt Schilling with Roger Clemens in calling the former a fan of the NY Yankees, and showed virtually no personal warmth or charisma.  

2. Incumbent Democrats offer coattails, not brooms, to fellow candidates.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick was no help to Coakley.  His record as governor is better than it's perceived, but it ain't good enough to convince independents and conservative Dems that voting "D" is the right choice again.  Guess what?  Politics is a team sport, and when the top statewide office holder is struggling, everyone else on that team struggles, too.

3.  Democrats realize that Massachusetts is far more conservative than perceived.

While New Hampshire elected Democrat Jeanne Shaheen as Governor for three terms in the 1990s, guess which stated voted had a Republican Governor from 1990 thru 2006?  Give up?  Massachusetts!  You can count the number of truly progressive Democrats in Massachusetts at the state level in elected roles on a couple of hands. Most elected Democrats are conservative to moderate, which is why a group of high net-worth progressive Democrats formed a working group recently to improve their chances in electoral politics.

4.  Democrats realize that Obamamania is over.  

For a brief, shining moment, there was a sense one year ago that the country had become post-everything.  Post-racial, post-class, post-partisan, post-post.  'Fraid not.  It's a vision worthy of aspiration, but in the meantime, we have to deal with the reality of the right-wing attack machine (Fox, Rush, Sean, et. al.), but more importantly the genuine fear and concern people have about their economic futures.  As smart and as good as Obama is -- witness the strong endorsement he got from USA Today for his first year in office -- the fact remains that far too many people lack confidence about their economic future and are willing to find convenient targets on which to unload their concerns.  In that environment, the relentless drumbeat of Fox wins. 

5.  Democrats understand they must listen more, and preach less.

When Democrats get into living rooms and church halls to listen, explain, and bring people together, instead of prescribing changes from the halls of the Capitol that can be misperceived as arrogant, they generally succeed.  On the other hand, Republicans succeed when they unite voters based on a calculus of fear.  In uncertain economic and political times, it's far easier to divide the electorate based on fear than on facts.  Democrats need to be patient, persistent, and far more present (meaning, outside of DC) than they currently are.  

6.  Democratic state parties are better organized and less dysfunctional.

Tip O'Neill famously said all politics are local, and I'd suggest that the strength of a national political party rests significantly on the organization, financing, and human capital of its state party affiliates.  Money has not been a problem in Massachusetts for politicians, but the state party's unwillingness to embrace, nurture, and develop a farm team of new politicians -- call them 21st Century Dems -- has been a huge source of their electoral problems.  Voters are smart and recognize machine candidates like Coakley.  Guess what.  They don't like them.

7. Democrats become paranoid.

Just as Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel, suggested that only the "paranoid in high tech" survive, so too should Democrats adopt the mindset that winning is nothing and that extinction lies around the corner.  If nothing else, the dominance of the right-wing extremists in the Republican Party has occurred because they have adopted a win-or-die mentality to their tactics and strategy.  Despite owning most of the media, think-tanks, and party infrastructure, Republicans generally have adopted a posture that communicates the possibility of annihilation to their base.  Without resorting to the strategy and tactics of fear in order to remain "in shape," Democrats need to find a way to keep voters and funders engaged from one election cycle to the next cycle.  This story in the Boston Globe today captures perfectly the complacency which weakens Democrats.

8. Democrats become funny.

Yup.  Gotta learn to laugh.  Are there any funny, off-the-cuff national Dems out there (aside from Obama, who I think can be pretty funny)?  For the most part, this party is far too serious (and maybe sanctimonious) for its own good.  Democrats need to realize that white paper policy positions are interesting...to maybe 10 people. Smile, relax, have a beer.  It's not just for the cameras.  It's also for your own sense of self and purpose in pursuing politics as a noble profession.  

And this...who is the number one Democrat in America today?  It's the same person who has been that number one Dem for the last six or more years?  Hint: it's not Obama.  It's been Jon Stewart. He may not carry the card of the Democratic National Committee in his wallet (who knows?), but if you look at the issues he has supported and the candidates he supports, there's no ambiguity about his political allegiances. But regardless of direct political affiliation, there's been no questioning his commitment to laughter.

Politics is a people business, and if you can't find a way to make people laugh, than maybe some Democrats ought to find a different calling.

Over Reaching Republicans

What a difference a year makes, yes?

After all, in 2009, Republican candidates win gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and gay marriage is overturned in Maine.  What's not to like if you are a conservative? Coupled with coverage in most leading media that suggests a gap exists in the electorate for Democrats, and you have to imagine Republicans find themselves happily and unexpectedly sitting pretty tonight.

Perfect.

That's just where we what the opposition to think.

The flaw in their thinking?

Let's start with the strength of the Democratic gubernatorial candidates in NJ and VA, which I would call tepid, at best.  

The New Jersey Governor, Jon Corzine, was a disaster.  By the end of his first term, he polled in the low 30s in terms of favorability.  He continued to believe that money, not political skills or personal charm, could bring success in politics.   Like a hamster, he went round-and-round on the political wheel, but one never sensed him growing in the job as a leader or political figure. New Jersey is as Democratic a state as you will find, and it takes a pretty terrible Democratic incumbent to lose it. 

And in Virginia, a state whose politics I know reasonably well, it's fair to say Creigh Deeds was no Tim Kaine and certainly no Mark Warner or Jim Webb.  Let's face it -- Democrats with a moderate disposition who executed well throughout their campaign tend to win in this bellwether southern state.  It voted for Obama; it has two Democratic Senators, and Democrats seemed to own the corner office in the state house for the last decade.  Creigh Deeds was a nice guy who waffled on taxes, waffled on his support for Obama, and had only a 20-year old thesis to distinguish him from his opponent.  Not exactly the Right Stuff.

And Maine?  Hey, let's be clear: gay rights are not protected and endorsed by the majority of voters.  That's no surprise.  Some 31 states have voted against gay marriage when it appears on the ballot.  Would the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965 been approved by most states at that time?

So, Republicans are encouraged by the fact that they can beat weak Democratic candidates and continue a tradition wherein two-thirds of most states oppose gay marriage at the ballot box. 

Terrific.  

The bottom line is this for Democrats:  most voters like and support Obama.  At the same time, they are worried about the economy, about their own jobs, and about the future.  They like this White House, but they need to see their own lives improving if they are going to vote Democratic in 2012.

As for the 2010 elections, I expect Obama and the Dems to make plenty of decisions that are short-term unpopular (meaning 2010), but medium-term popular (meaning 2012 and beyond). Most economists predict terrible unemployment thru next year's mid-term elections, and that cannot help the incumbent party.  

The good news for Democrats lies in places like Claremont, NH.  This city on the western part of the Granite state, once one of the most conservative places in New Hampshire, failed to endorse a conservative insurrection that arose regarding caps on spending.  Instead of embracing what might seen as a tried-and-true, anti-incumbent initiative, Claremont voters overwhelmingly supported candidates who supported economic growth and ongoing investment in their community.  If Democrats can demonstrate the progress that is the explicit promise in the progressive ideology, coupled with sound candidates for office, they will win. 

And if not -- if they waffle and fail to execute -- they will lose.

Sure, Republicans should not over-reach based on the election results from a few states in 2009.  But Democrats must also pay heed and understand that results, not ideology, wins elections.

The Yankee Republican Returns

Just when a person thought things could not improve for the Republican Party – reeling as it was from the philandering of Senator Ensign and Governor Sanford, as well as the bizarre behavior of Governor Palin (if you want to read a semi-illiterate missive from the Alaskan governor, click here ) – two old-fashioned Yankee Republicans in New England stepped forward to begin reclaiming their party.

Yesterday, it was New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, who announced her resignation later this month to explore a run for the New Hampshire Senate seat in 2010 (Republican Judd Gregg currently holds the seat and has announced he won’t run again). 

Today it was Charlie Baker, the Massachusetts wunderkid who served in two of the biggest jobs in the Bay State -- Secretary of Health and Human Services and later as Secretary of Finance and Administration – and who announced he was going to run for Governor of the Commonwealth in 2010.

Just like that, the species of Yankee Republican – thought to be dead, done, and gone – has returned like a phoenix. 

Here’s what we know both of them share.

• Managerial competence

Baker has far more stripes on his uniform, both in government and in business (where he served as CEO for two large, very complex organizations, Harvard Vanguard and Harvard Pilgrim), but both Ayotte and Baker have solid reputations as straight-shooters who consider facts first, and then think about ideology.

• Fiscal conservatism 

We don’t know as much about Ayotte in this regard, but Baker’s record is clear on this issue and my suspicion is that Ayotte will be very similarly tight-fisted.  Both candidates are banking on spending and stewardship of tax dollars to be the number one issue for voters in 2010.  They will argue that Lynch, Patrick, and Obama have been spending tax dollars recklessly and inefficiently.

•  Refusal to embrace conservative social issues  

Other than endorsing a strong law-and-order perspective, I don’t expect either Ayotte or Baker to bear-hug conservative social issues significantly.  While we will see what each candidate says and does on the campaign trail (see below), and while I expect each candidate will mouth support for conservative positions like so-called traditional marriage, immigration, and abortion, I also expect neither candidate will adopt a call to overturn existing laws or judicial rulings in their respective states.  I think it’s reasonable to expect them to endorse charter schools, but look for a libertarian-to-moderate social conservatism from both candidates.  And expect both to be pro-environment. 

•  Likeability  

It’s hard to deny that both candidates offer a lot to like – they’re smart, earnest, hard-working, pleasant on the eyes, and not ideologically paralyzed. We will learn a lot more about them on the campaign trail, but on paper and in person (so far), both Baker and Ayotte have a lot going for them.

• Inexperience  

Neither Baker nor Ayotte has run for statewide office before.  We have no idea how well they will do, either in terms of connecting with a huge swath of voters or in terms of managing a campaign enterprise. 

One of Obama’s secret assets during the 2008 campaign was how well he managed his own team – it showed he had the managerial chops to run the federal government.   The nod here has to go to Baker in terms of delivering the goods, if only because he has far more work experience than Ayotte.  On the other hand, running a statewide campaign in New Hampshire is far easier than in Massachusetts. 

Aside from the managerial demands, I think the great unknown is how they each do in front of crowds, big and small.  In this YouTube age, when every comment can and will be recorded, it’s not at all clear that they will be as good in the public square as they are in the governmental office.  It’s true that Deval Patrick had none of this experience when he ran, and it’s probably true, too, that John Lynch won three gubernatorial elections without mastering the art of a public presentation, but Ayotte and Baker must still present (day after day) in forums other than their own choosing for months and months if they are to be successful in November 2010. 

So, who will fare best some 15 months from now, Ayotte or Baker?  I’d have to give the nod to Baker.  He’s got more government experience, a deeper rolodex for fundraising, proven managerial skills, and an electorate happy to elect Republican Governors to counter the strangle-hold that the corrupt Massachusetts Democratic Party has over statehouse politics.  Ayotte faces a real uphill battle, despite polling numbers that whisper otherwise like a siren.  Though a solid public servant, she will struggle from a variety of issues (no support from John Lynch, a modest rolodex, and no experience in retail politics), but none will be so damning as her swim against the demographic stream in the Granite State.  As Andy Smith of UNH and others have demonstrated, the New Hampshire electorate has swung Democratic.  They outnumber Republicans in terms of voter registration, and if you add independent voters to the mix, the advantage clearly belongs to the Dems.  I predict that Hodes will beat Ayotte so long as Obama’s popularity remains above 55% in New Hampshire in November 2010 (which would be about ten points below where the President polls today), and he makes no major mistakes on the campaign trail.    

Regardless of who wins in November 2010, the events of the past two days signal an important moment for the Republican Party nationally, one which Democrats ought to notice.  First, the Obama cool – in managing, consideration of world events, and style – can be co-opted by the other party.  Democrats also ought to notice that spending (and its twin, the deficit) will be the policy issues upon which Republicans run in 2010.  Democrats will not only have to defend their choices, but hope that the economy shows sustainable signs of recovery by the next mid-term election if they are to retain their advantage in Congress and among governorships.  

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

While it's been nearly forever since I last posted on this blog, the absence owes nothing to a lack of issues about which to write or words written about those issues.  They've just not appeared here.  Why?  A lot of it has to do with my new work schedule, which (owing to the economy) sees me officially at 80% of my usual work schedule.  It's more like 60% of my usual work schedule, but in terms of this blog, it's meant I've needed time to get comfortable with the new routine.

Enough about me; let's jump into the fray, where I'd like to suggest that New Hampshire took two incredible steps forward tonight, and one big step backward.

The first piece of good news should be obvious: Governor Lynch signed into law today a bill which makes the Granite State the 6th state in the union to recognize marriage from same-sex couples.  It's a huge step forward -- not simply on the issue of rights for all citizens, but on the issue of marriage itself.  At a time when the number of single parents is increasing, this is a step forward to encourage the opposite.  Marriage is not for everyone, but let's not put any hurdles in the way of those individuals who seek to establish such an important union.

The second step forward involved the statement from New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (a Republican) that the proposed budget out of the New Hampshire Senate, which would bring 13,000 video slot machines to the Granite State, would damage New Hampshire's "quality of life.  As AG Ayotte put it, gambling leads far too many people to increased rates of "bankruptcy, divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, and crime." 

Let the church say "amen."  There is nothing positive that comes to the New Hampshire brand when 13,000 video slot machines are littered throughout the state.  It's bad enough to consider gambling as an honorable means upon which to finance basic government services, but the idea that one of our most precious assets -- the quality of life in New Hampshire -- would be trashed so quickly is disgraceful.  Congratulations to AG Ayotte for opposing this short-sighted measure.

The step backwards, of course, came when the New Hampshire Senate today voted to support a budget which depends upon these 13,000 video gambling machines as revenue source.  By a margin of 2-1, the Senate ignored not only the wisdom of the Attorney General, but also the common sense of most voters.  According to a poll from UNH taken earlier this year, only 41% of Granite State voters support candidates who support legalized gambling -- hardly an endorsement. 

I'm terribly disappointed that the Upper Valley's two Democratic senators -- Matt Houde and Deb Reynolds -- support this gambling-dependent budget. As we saw with the gay marriage bill, it's increasingly clear that the most important political issues of the day defying simple political labels like Democrat v. Republican or liberal v. conservative.  What we need in New Hampshire (and in the nation) are neo-realists -- politicans who make practical decisions based on evidence rather than prescribed ideology. 

I'd reckon that if more such politicans existed in New Hampshire, I'd be crowing about a terrific 3-steps forward from the Granite State.

Three Cheers for Marriage

The news today that the New Hampshire State Senate passed a bill legalizing gay marriage -- after plenty of hints that this esteemed body would do otherwise -- brought an incredible smile to my face and warm feeling to my heart.

I support marriage.  It's one of the hardest things anyone can undertake.  Any legislation which welcomes more people to this awesome responsibility and joy has my support.

(On a purely political note, I'm thrilled that New Hampshire State Senator Deb Reynolds reversed her earlier position, and voted this afternoon in favor of the gay marriage bill.)

The only apparent impediment to the bill's final adoption lies with the governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, who has said he supports "traditional marriage."

In his lexicon, Governor Lynch says "traditional marriage" means "between a man and a woman."

Really?

I thought traditional marriage was something much harder and complex than simply a guy and a gal getting together.  I also support "traditional marriage," but I thought it was something like this: fidelity in good times and bad.  Sickness and health.  I thought marriage was akin to embarking a forever journey, the likes of which will demand more and give more than either person could possibly imagine at its start.

I should know.  I failed at marriage the first time I tried.  I got married almost immediately after graduating from college, and fell almost immediately on my face in light of its responsibilities.  I was simply not ready and within about a year, the marriage was over.

Fast forward nearly twenty-five years later, and a slightly different picture emerges.  Elizabeth and I will have been married for 18 years this June.  We have three incredible children.  We've owned three different homes, and shared an uncountable number of experiences together -- good, bad, sad, and happy.

I don't pretend to know the secrets of what makes marriage work, but the practice we've fallen is pretty simple:  we get married everyday.  Sure, we had a great and wonderful wedding.  But the most important thing I've found is to wake-up each day and get married again.  Day by day, week by week, we get stronger and resilient and better at this really demanding institution.

Many years ago, my mother passed this gem to me about marriage: it's much easier to stay single.  Marriage asks for more.  It asks for what is not given easily.  As time progresses, as our bodies age, as bad habits become entrenched, as the grass looks greener (always) somewhere else, marriage can seem as attractive as an evening spent flossing one's teeth.

There isn't a married person out there who hasn't wondered, I suppose, is this all there is? 

What happened to the sweet wedding cake, the fancy dress, and party invitations? 

Long after the wedding music has ended and guests leave, marriage rears its head and asks us to consider something far more complex, rich, and mysterious.  

And yet there are these moments, too, with marriage that defy simple explanation and exceed any other joy we might know.  The quiet cusp of two hands in the middle in the night.  A shared knowing look as children talk and laugh and sing.  That feeling, suddenly, that the person you married 1,001 years ago is hot, again.

I believe traditional marriage means embracing all of the contradictions and simple pleasures that come with commitment.  I believe it means supporting fewer out-of-wedlock births.  I believe it means supporting community-based and faith-based programs that help married people, young and old, navigate this journey.  I believe traditional marriage means having to say sometimes that you're sorry, sometimes that you're not sorry, and that always that you love, cherish, and remain faithful to the one you married.  

Traditional marriage is about embracing an instituion that welcomes the complex union of two strong individuals.  And while no piece of legislation can describe such a complex arc completely, I believe these so-called gay marriage bills do much more than extend this right to the rest of us.  In fact, I think the real genius of these bills lies in the subtle way they remind us of this complex journey. 

Do you want to get married?  Really?

If so, welcome to the club.

On Bonuses

For all of the sturm and drang over the AIG bonuses, it's important to peel back a layer of indignation and ask the following question:

How many of us are reacting (and maybe over-reacting) to the bonus scandal at AIG because we don't really understand (and maybe don't want to understand) the magnitude of the credit-default swap and derivative scandal at AIG?

Everyone understand a bonus.  You work.  You earn a wage or a salary.  And then someone pays you more, supposedly based on outstanding performance of either yourself or the firm.

But derivatives?  Credit-default swaps?  Huh? 

No matter that the so-called sin of bonuses at AIG ($160+M) compared to AIG's other sins in credit-default swaps and derivatives (as judged by the US government bailout of $80B) is on the order of at least 1:2,000. 

Put more simply, for $1 in bonus money sent to AIG which we now protest, another $2,000 has gone to the firm for its risk business practices in credit-default swaps and derivatives. 

The bottom line is, we understand bonuses, even if they represent some 0.20% of the federal monies committed to AIG.  All of this anger about bonuses at AIG involves less than 1% of the total money committed by the federal government to AIG.  Weird, right?

Wrong.  Most Americans don't receive a bonus in their paycheck.  They earn an hourly wage or a yearly salary, and they're glad to get it. 

And for years, we've heard about CEOs and other corporate leaders earning performance-related pay packages in the tens of millions of dollars, while more than half of us have earned barely stayed afloat or earned less than we did ten years ago. 

Now comes the recession, and while we're not expecting corporate leaders to earn a lot less, the notion of bonuses seems particularly unfathomable. 

So, there is both logic and ill-logic in our reaction to the AIG bonuses.  If we are really concerned about malfeasance, we ought to focus on the illegitimate business practices of the AIG hedge fund that committed to insure the un-insurable.  The bonuses paid by AIG are wrong, but they frankly pale in comparison to the real crime committed by this financial giant.

So, where do we go from here?

First, I think we need to commit ourselves to real and significant wage and salary growth for the "bottom" 60-80% of American households in the next ten years in terms of income.  This is the group which has lost or barely kept afloat during the Bush years.  Obama's focus on health care is critical to achieving this goal.  Far too many corporate and other organizational dollars have gone towards meeting health care of employees needs than wage needs in the last 20 years because of incredible inefficiencies in our health care system.  Once we have a more effective system, employers will be able to (and should) direct compensation dollars away from benefits like health care and more towards wages and salaries.  

Second, we need to maintain the middle-class tax cut introduced by the Obama administration.  The mal-distribution of societal responsibility introduced by the Bush administration must end.  A return to Clinton-era tax rates, which is what Obama proposes, for the most wealthy and privileged in American society is the first step towards ensuring opportunity for all. 

Finally, we must re-regulate our financial houses.  Faithful readers of this blog know I endorsed Senator Chris Dodd in the New Hampshire primary, and did not endorse then-Senator Obama until Senator Dodd withdrew after the Iowa caucuses.  Months later, when Senator Dodd had a chance to return to the Granite State in the summer of 2008, I asked him about the pending financial crisis, and whether he thought modification of the Financial Services Modernization Act or the Commodities Modernization Act was necessary. 

To my great disappoint, Senator Dodd demurred.  He did not think it was necessary to separate the Wall Street functions of banking from its Main Street functions.  By blending the two operations, we could compete in a global economy, he said.

I like and appreciate and think highly of Senator Dodd, but I'm afraid he and far too many Republicans and Democrats simply missed the disastrous implications of these bills (for the record, the Financial Services Modernization Act was passed under the Clinton administration, and the Commodities Modernization Act passed under President George W. Bush). 

The bottom line is that conservative, prudent, and proven financial strategies for asset management, banking, and insurance were tossed aside once senior executives were compensated by the quarterly growth of their company's stock. 

Bonus-stalking and inflated quarterly earnings became the lifeblood of firms and their leaders. Instead of serving as cherry atop a well-earned dessert, bonuses swelled to such proportions that leadership in financial institutions swayed to whatever short-term methods would allow them to earn these lucrative "rewards."  The cherry became the dessert, and what followed was a complete upheaval of our financial system.  For all of our outrage over the recent round of bonuses paid by AIG, we ignore the years and years in which Wall Street leaders (and many corporate leader far from Wall Street) paid themselves handsomely for profits that we now understand were fiction.

What saddens me most in these turbulent times lies with the failure to learn from organizations that do understand how to lend to the most risky set of customers.  Consider the New Hampshire Community Loan Fund, which has made over $100M worth of loans since 1984 to the riskiest of borrowers. It's been in the subprime finance and housing market for its entire career.  Its default rate?  In over 25 years, the historical average has been less than 1%.  If nothing else, their track record shows its very realistic to lend money to these markets without bringing undue risk to investors. 

It's easy to get frothy about the AIG bonus situation, but doing so avoids the hard work ahead that will reset our economic and financial priorities.  If a small non-profit in New Hampshire can safely invest in sub-prime borrowers for 25 years and do better than Wall Street, surely its possible for that lesson to be shared with other financial firms.  If there is a bonus to be found in this economic melt-down, it's that prudent financial practices can in fact enable a 21st century middle-class to re-emerge in the United States.

Economic Frost Heaves Ahead

It's been a while since I posted to my blog, owing more to the insane schedule that defines Winter for my family than anything else. 

In the 15 weeks since Thanksgiving, we've balanced 12 public meetings on the Lyme School budget, almost weekly Lyme budget committee meetings, four-days-a-week of ski-race instruction (including travel to mountains several hours away from our home), twice-a-week basketball practice or games which I coached for 10 weeks, and twice-a-week work or volunteer commitments in the evening for both myself and Elizabeth.

Plus visitors on weekends.  Oh, and plus work for both of us.

Mud season approaches, and a gentle cheer erupts from everyone in the Glenshaw household.  It means on weekends we can get up after 5:30am.  It means we eat dinner together for four or more nights of the week.  It means a return to a normal schedule as a family.

Alas, since November (more like September), there has been no normal in terms of the economy.  And in fact, since January, what had been a good-to-bad situation has grown far, far worse.  Indeed last week, as I listened to two podcasts from Business Week and The New Yorker about the economic crisis, I heard the word "depression" mentioned several times as term most appropriate for describing the economic conditions we face.

We can quibble about whether the term is appropriate, but there is no mistaking the dire situation ahead.  For instance, when my employer made the decision to reduce 150 positions through a combination of attrition, layoffs, and early retirement, the Dow stood at approximately 9,000.  A week ago the Dow was at 6,500 and today nothing much more than a sheer desire for optimism has the index nudging just north of 7,200. 

I was one of those affected.  Although I was not laid-off, my hours and pay have been reduced by 20%.  Add the extra cost for health benefits in this situation, and the impact is more like 25%.

The economic road ahead is not just rocky and hard to navigate.  It's frankly dangerous. 

Consider the fundamental industries in near or complete collapse today: finance, housing, and automobile.  Previous recessions saw high-tech or energy alone as the primary drivers of economic recession.  You don't need a doctorate in economics to understand that multiple pillars of the economy in economic distress -- coupled with global interdependency and the volatility which accompanies Internet-age communication -- makes for a destabilizing financial system that will require a significant amount of time for complete recovery. 

Maybe this is what a 21st century Depression looks like.

I also find myself deeply concerned with the lack of national unity on this issue.  Sure, everyone knows there is an economic crisis at hand, but there seems to be a distinctive lack of national commitment to solving the problem together.  Warren Buffett compared this moment to Pearl Harbor, yet I sense no response that compares with that historical moment.  Instead it feels like a pack of ducks or geese dominates the headlines.  We seem more committed to pecking on the shortfalls in prescriptions made by others than on navigating the road ahead together.

So, in the spirit of national unity, here is my prescription for the next few months. 

1. Patience plus.  These days, it takes much longer than I would like to travel from my home to the Dartmouth Skiway because of the many frost heaves between here and there.  Go too fast, and the transmission on your car will get ripped out.  Go too slow, and you risk angering everyone behind your too-slow-car.  Let's assume the same pace with the development of economic policy.  Not too fast, not too slow -- middlin' is just fine.
2. Breathe deeply.  When things seem tough, remain calm.  When good news appears (two months of profit at Citi!!!!!!!!), remain calm.  In other words, be cool.  Yes, three fundamental pillars of the US and perhaps global economy are in trouble, but there are a lot of sectors with promise ahead.   No less than IBM shows tremendous strength ahead.  GE is sure to be winner, too.  A week ago, when I began this post, GE was at about $6 per share.  Today it is nearly $10 per share.  Hang in there.
3. Re-balance, and move ahead.  The next winners will be those companies, organizations, and individuals who adjust their operating plans to the new economic reality without losing sight of their fundamental mission or goal or customer.  The losers will be those who become near-sighted, and wonder how will I/We/Us survive.  Wrong question.  The right question is, how do we grow?  Make no mistake -- even in times like this, some organizations, companies, and individuals soar.  Are you going to belong to this elite club, or are you going to be a wannabe?

While I still have enormous faith in our national and international economy to recover, I also believe that we are entering a period of enormous economic distress that will require a solid year or more, not months, before recovery will occur. 

This time of year, as the snow and ice recede in New Hampshire, the detritus of Winter becomes apparent.  Fallen tree limbs, sleds, clothing, and all manner of leave-behinds from family pets appear.  In a few months, the tired grass will appear bright green in my backyard, but tonight the few patches of earth which emerge appear sick, yellow, and mangled -- crushed by the weight of four months of heavy snow and ice. 

Will I have the patience to wait for the ice to recede and the green grass to return before heading into the backyard to practice pitching? 

Will I have the patience to ride-out these economic frost heaves before returning to my mission as a husband, dad, and professional?

A lyric from the title title of Bruce Springsteen's newest album captures my sentiments completely in these contradictory times:  "I'm workin' on a dream, though sometimes it feels so far away." 

Judd Gregg & the dead Republican Party

The news tonight that New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg has withdrawn as President Obama’s choice for Commerce Secretary comes as no surprise to those of us in the trenches of New Hampshire politics who confront the reality of a dying Republican Party on a daily basis.

Whatever the Republican Party might have been in northern New England 20 or 30 years ago -- moderate in tone, fiscally conservative, socially liberal -- there appear only two national figures today from this region who still represent those positions:  Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

My experience is that far too many Republicans in both New England and throughout the country have been captured by the take no-prisoners mentally led by a troika of Republican ideologues and operatives: most notably, Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich, and Karl Rove.

Consider Judd Gregg.  He was once a radical fiscal conservative who, as the Granite State governor in the early 1990s, railed against the expansive and expensive ways of the University of New Hampshire during a similar economic downturn.  In that light, Gregg’s silence on fiscal matters was telling during two terms of the Bush administration that saw an expanding federal deficit, fueled by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the favor-the-rich tax cuts.  For a guy who publicly preached Republican values of small government and reduced taxation, Gregg nevertheless felt compelled to support the Bush agenda for eight long years with silence.

Why?

Because that was the game in DC, and Gregg decided he would rather play under the new rules than stand for principle. 

Under the Obama administration, however, the rules today for the Republicans appear far different.  Principles like fiscal responsibility are suddenly in vogue for Republicans.  We’re seeing it here in New Hampshire from John Sununu, Sr. who, like Gregg, remained silent during eight years of federal expansion and fiscal largesse under the Bush administration, but who has come roaring back into the political spotlight in 2009 to complain about Democratic spending both in the Granite State and nationally. 

The irony is that even a few weeks ago, Gregg was prepared to abandon even these principles.  A far greater political principle – personal advancement – was to be considered.  Gregg offered his name to the Obama administration for Commerce Secretary, knowing full well that Obama was a Democratic and he a Republican.  Asked if he could willingly support the President’s agenda, Gregg claimed he could do so in this time of national crisis. 

That was then.  With Republicans closing ranks (except for Collins & Snowe) against the stimulus, Gregg faced a squeeze play.  Would he abandon the Republican party for the principle of national unity, or would he return to the warm embrace of a political party at the expense of national unity?

For the last two years in Lyme, NH, I’ve worked closely with elected officials whose political and party affiliations are far more conservative than my own on matters related to school funding (I’m the chair of the school board here).  As you might expect in a town of less than 2,000 people, our exchanges have been cordial and pleasant.  We’ve worked cooperatively and spoken kindly to one another.  And yet, despite all of the polite talk and attempts to explain the basis upon which our decisions are made, and despite our ability to deliver budgets dramatically lower than previous years, I find these same conservative officials voting against any and all of our budgets in meeting after meeting.

At one point this year, a few of these conservative town officials even voted to fund our school library with a grand total of $1.00.  Although their motion ultimately failed, it nevertheless attracted three votes, all of them from nice, seemingly reasonable conservative elected officials.

So much for bi-partisanship.

The bottom line is that Republican Party is largely dead – not in terms of activists or money, though both are waning.  Instead its values and principles have died, and in the interests of expediency or desire to acquire or retain power, Republican values have withered on the vine.

In this regard, Judd Gregg had a wake up call this week.  Would he trade political advancement for values?  Could he find a way to compromise with those whose political philosophy differs from his own values?  In the end, Gregg did neither.  Like far too many Republicans today, Gregg decided to falsely embrace principles he had long abandoned because there wasn’t sufficient political cover to explain his actions.  At the same time, Gregg and far too many Republicans at the national, state, and local level have willingly forgotten how to compromise or work with officials with different political viewpoints.  They talk bi-partisanship, but can’t walk a mile in the shoes of a Democrat.

That’s a sure sign of a dead political party.  Ultimately, the renaissance of the Democratic Party came because a Vermonter named Howard Dean declared in 2003, at the height of the Bush presidency, that he came to represent “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.”  The irony was, Dean as Governor of Vermont had worked closely with Vermont Republicans and often angered his own party with his moderate views.  At the same time, Dean passed health care and civil rights legislation that was ten years ahead of the rest of the country.  If only the Republicans could find someone like Howard Dean -- who could comprise without abandoning principle -- they might have a chance at legitimacy in 2009.

The Bus (or, Behavior in the Obama Era)

In light of the breakdown of Tom Daschle's nomination, and others like it (all of which is brilliantly captured in Steve Pearlstein's column tomorrow in the Washington Post), the conversation I had last week with a local CEO rings incredibly clear and revealing.

This CEO -- who runs a very public enterprise in the Upper Valley with some 150+ employees, who applies the label of "conservative" to political and economic views -- described the mode in which this she or he travels to a very high-powered, regular meeting in New England with some of its best known business leaders.

(If you can't tell, I'm working hard to protect the identity of this CEO.  No pronouns!)

"I take the bus."

Not a limo.  Not a car with a driver.  Not an airplane (even thought the meeting is more than 120 miles from the hometown of this CEO).

"I take the bus."

Why?

"I take the bus because I can get work done, because it's inexpensive, and drops me off very near my hotel and location for the meeting."

For the other CEOs in this highfalutin group, such behavior was unbelievable.  Take the bus?  My oh my!

In fact, this Upper Valley CEO got a lot of grief from the other New England CEOs for taking the bus.  One CEO in this highfalutin group took a helicopter to the meeting.  Many of the others arrive by chauffeured car or limousine.

But bus?

No way.  Not for these guys and gals.

Maybe, however, the tide has turned. 

In light of Tom Daschle's error of hypocrisy  -- who used to boast of his driving a mid-1970s Pontiac more than 200,000 miles, who used to say he wasn't one of those politicans in the limousine class, who did not used to wear red horned-rimmed glasses -- maybe the problem lies in the fact that far too many senior leaders in America (whether it be in politics, business, or other sectors) believe 1) they're entitled to different rules, and 2) favorable treatment comes with the job description of these high-and-mighty jobs.

News flash: Those days are over.  It's a brown bag world, even for the Masters of the Universe.  

For too long, the CEO mindset has swayed both the shareholders and boards of leading corporations and other organizations in this nation.  President Obama has set a high standard, and found some of the most loyal and capable (especially in the case of Daschle) people in his administration to be wanting. 

So be it. 

It's high time we applied a simple principle: to whom much is given, much is expected. 

I applaud this Upper Valley CEO and hope other leaders will do the same:  get on the bus.

Bush's Last Day (and Mine)

If you’re a Democratic activist, tomorrow marks the last day when George W. Bush can be President of the United States of America.  It’s a day for celebration.  It’s a day for joy.  Not only is Bush gone, but the best possible man on the planet to replace him, Barack Obama of Chicago, Illinois, will be sworn into the nation’s highest office at noon tomorrow. 

For eight long years, we on the patriotic Democratic wing of the Democratic Party have worked hard to end the reign of George the II, and restore Democratic principles and priorities to the nation.  Thanks to people like Governor Howard Dean of Vermont, we got a chance to articulate our principles and, in his role as DNC Chair, implement tactics (like the 50-state strategy) that brought the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to power in 2008.

So, in this apparent moment of glory and celebration, why I am a bit misty-eyed?

The answer is simple, sudden, and expected.  It came Sunday afternoon, late in the day, after the snow had fallen, after the J3 Ford Sayre racers had bombed down the slalom course at Whaleback Mountain, and were preparing to leaving for a five-hour trip north – way north – that same day for a two-day Super-G training camp and race at SugarLoaf Mountain in Maine.

My daughter, Hannah, all of 13-and-a-half years, was ready to board a rented van alongside nine other ski racers, all similarly bedecked in snow/ski/racing/cool gear.  Like most families in this cohort, our day began at 6am with yet another early morning weekend wakeup call.  Some 11 hours later, both parents and their offspring gathered in the parking lot of a local establishment to make the final preparations for the trip.  Amidst the frantic talk and nervous chatter, I could see the eyes of parents widen and their throats tighten.  It was late.  They would be driving for some 250+ miles, way north, on a night when the snow continued to fall, when the visibility wasn’t great, when the easiest thing in the world would be to have your teenager at home.

But that’s not where I was, and that’s not where these other parents were.  Maybe, unexpectedly, this was our last night to be truly and solely parents.  Maybe on this night we realized an uncomfortable truth:  that from hereon, parenting was out of our direct control.  As the van drove away, as I counted the hours until I thought Hannah might actually be near her destination, I realized that what I missed, in addition to my daughter, was control.

When she was 10 or 8 or 6 or even younger, I could manage and direct virtually everything in her life.  Now was different.  Now people who might seem like strangers to me – her skiing coach, his assistant, maybe even some of the kids with whom she was travelling – were intimate and important companions in her life. 

What?!!!!!

You can’t possibly be serious, I thought to myself.  Let my precious little girl alone with these people, for this long, with only a modicum of rules and boundaries and control.

It can’t be happening.

Only it is, and it must.  To grow at this age, I realized – later, much later, around 3am, as I awoke and wondered around my house in a fitful burst of energy – requires extension beyond parents, beyond the home.

It means having to pee in the snow bank alongside your friends.  It happened with Hannah on this trip.  Would I permit it?  No, of course not, but that’s the point.

It means having a really tough crash on the snow course. It happened to Hannah on this trip.  Would I permit it?  No, of course not, but that’s the point.

And that’s just the news from Day One.  What will happen tomorrow?

I found myself today emailing my daughter with questions I swore I’d never ever ever ever ask in this situation.

1)    Did you get enough sleep?
2)    Did you get enough to eat?

Ohmigod, Dad, can you stop embarrassing me, like now?

No.  I can’t.  Last night was my final night as a parent, complete and toto.  Hereon, I am sharing you with the world.  I will never stop being your parent.  I will never stop loving you, Hannah (and your brothers, Jacob and Noah).  Regardless of what you do or say or think, my love for you is absolute.

But what is not absolute is my ability to control your life.  At some point, reluctantly and with a great deal of fear and worry, I must begin to let go.  It’s harder than I realized, even though plenty of wise people (like my own Mother) told me so.  I look back at pictures when you were in diapers and needed to be fed, and think those days seem so easy. 

Maybe so.  Maybe not.  Maybe raising children is hard work regardless of their age.  Whether they are 2 or 20 years old, children present challenges that arrive full-stop and unapologetic.  They offer the fullest and most complete way of defining yourself and life in general. 

So tomorrow comes, and by noon Barack Obama will be sworn-in as our 44th President.  I can’t wait.  He and his family, and his administration, will bring great things to our country, and demand great and wonderful service from us, its citizens.  In four years, I expect this nation will be in remarkable shape because of his leadership.

Tomorrow comes, and my daughter will come home.  As she grows, she will demand more from me than I am perhaps ready to give.  Within about four short years, she will be ready for college.  Tomorrow night, however, I will met her in a parking lot and bring her home, and maybe even get the chance to tuck her into bed.  It’s a night numbered.  It’s a night not forever. 

On this night, I’m not the only one with mixed emotions.