Paranoid about the paranoics

I've been remembering the frustrating conversation I had at a wine tasting a while back.  One thing this annoying person said is that he has a gun in his house to defend himself against the government when they try to take away all his rights.

Even though the Berkeley world in which I am now so immersed does not trust the government, I don't live in an environment where the government is seen as a threat to be armed against.  But I know there are many parts of the country where government is so mistrusted, so hated, that people would like it to go away, and they proudly maintain their guns for the opportunity to return to the natural order of things.

This is the source of the Tea Party movement.  Every morning I wake up and hear on NPR about the (potential for, and now real) government shutdown.  It frustrates me because of the premise embedded in the discussion: that government should not be shut down.  The disconnect between this premise and that of the Tea Party frightens me for the future.

The Tea Party wants radically smaller government.  And they've won.  The sequester: we are still functioning under radically reduced government funding.  The government shutdown: radically reduced government funding.  Support for food programs is vanishing.  NPR presents this as a terrible impact of the shutdown.  The Tea Partiers are cheering: they do not believe in food programs.  Go down the list of what the media presents as an impact of the government shutdown, and you will see a list of the items that the Tea Party does not want funded by the government anyway.  Eight hundred thousand federal workers: that's their win.  Food safety inspection.  National Parks.

Fox News calls it a government slimdown.  The term isn't just a way for them to play down the impact of the shutdown -- it's a way to celebrate that government is getting smaller.  Who doesn't want to slim down?

The Tea Party has been clever to focus on Obamacare as the item they want to negotiate on.  If for some reason the Democrats begin to discuss this law, they win.  If, as the Tea Party knows, this law is a done deal, then they can confidently hide behind the impenetrable shield of the issue and radically reduce the size of the government.  It's win-win for the Tea Partiers.

I am a diehard Democrat, and I have wanted to give the President the benefit of the doubt for his five years in office.  But someone on his team doesn't get it.  It's not just the economy, stupid: it's jobs, stupid.  It's not about programs, because that plays into Tea Party hands.  It's about individuals and their paychecks.  As the countdown to the shutdown began, the President should have had a daily news conference, each day talking about jobs.  In the second person: make it immediate.  On the first day, he could talk to the 800,000.  On the next day, he could pick one ripple effect and warn another segment of the population about their paychecks.  And so on.  If the shutdown occurred, he should keep going.  He could have a different cabinet member speaking each day to a different segment under his or her purview.

He could declare that he would fund the Bureau of Labor Statistics as a critical government function, sending the message that he cares more about tracking the jobs of the citizens than the Tea Partiers.

Instead, the Democrats are gleefully watching the Tea Party tear the Republicans in half, not realizing that they are all in the same sinking canoe.  However, the premise we hear in that is that the Republicans have a problem, but the Tea Partiers have no issue tearing their own party in half, tearing the government to pieces. Their goal is not to become the majority power in the Republican Party.  If Tea Partiers no longer exist because there is no functioning government of the United States, then they win.

This is my paranoia.  We are dealing here with something much bigger than a movement within government: we are dealing with a movement that is truly trying to destroy government.  When the debt ceiling is not raised, and the economy tanks, and more people lose their jobs, the people will say, "The government messed this up," not "The Tea Partiers, the Republicans messed this up, so I think I'll vote Democratic."  Having the people turn on the government means that we no longer have government by the people, for the people.  We just have a world where those with the biggest guns win.

Supporting the troops has to go beyond putting a yellow magnet on your car

This morning on NPR there were two stories that had the same core issue: the Bush administration has abrogated its responsibility to take care of its citizens -- but neither pointed a finger. The first, on Aqua Dots and the fact that they are made in China and elute GHB when swallowed by children, is yet another story about how the underfunded (and under-missioned) CPSC isn't doing anything related to C, P, or S.

The second, about Steve Kraft, an Iraq veteran who cannot get job, was an intimate story of one vet as told mostly in his own words. NPR kept it small, but the gaps between the lines, the places where a bigger story can be read, were big enough to drive the world's largest economy through. Kraft said, in effect "I've just had greatest leadership training you can get, and no one seems to find value in that."

The first thing that sits between the lines is the GI Bill. We have one now, the Montgomery GI Bill, but it's not the same as the original. People coming back from war need a way to reenter nonmilitary society, a way to wrap a familiar coating around the foreignness of their military experience, and a plan that sends them to school is one way to provide that. We already struggle with the education of our citizens and are becoming a dumber and dumber country. Why not invest in education at least for veterans, enabling them to benefit intellectually and at the same time look more "normal" to those who didn't serve?

The original GI Bill of Rights educated 7.8 million of 16 million World War II veterans. It also provided nearly 2.4 million home loans for them. If we ask people to serve, then we need to serve them in turn.

Related to the GI Bill is another reentry activity: career services support. I'm sure if I started googling I'd find an agency that provides such services for veterans. Sadly, I'm sure it's underfunded as well as understaffed. But this is the most important service related to war: what's the point of having it if you end up with a lot of miserable, unemployed veterans who are not participants in the peace? Veterans should receive the best career services that can be provided. Plus they actually could contribute quite substantially to business leadership and the economy.

Part of this is employer education; individual veterans can educate prospective employers about their experience (and Steve Kraft actually explains its value well). But why should individual veterans have to do all the work themselves? There should be an employer education program about the value (and challenges) of hiring veterans. Right now, it's almost as if they are analogous to felons: recently returned from an alternate society, and therefore perceived as unemployable.

One key area that employers would need to understand is the respect issue. Kraft talked about how he did not feel respect from his manager and that he resented the work he was given, that it showed disrespect for his skills. People in the military work in a field of trust that is beyond what we experience as civilians: they must trust others totally, and thus in turn be totally trustworthy, in order to survive. To reenter a culture where trust and respect are not immediately given is going to be tough for everyone. Employers need to know that they must express trust in veterans (which can make even menial jobs more palatable), and veterans need to be prepared (via coaching) for situations where respect takes a multiplicity of forms and may not be immediate.

The second item is the economy, stupid. The Iraq war is ruining our economy. Veterans are returning to an environment where the economy is shrinking, where there are fewer jobs. Bush is getting us coming and going: sending people to war, wrecking the economy, not providing jobs when they return. The next president is going to have to have a major veterans reentry plan, or this will become not just unnerving but politically ugly.

And then it becomes small again. I kept thinking, "How many employers are listening to this?" I'm sure that's what NPR hoped would happen: that perhaps the story would change employers' views of veterans. My first thought is that we at my university need to beef up career services for veterans. Can someone hire a veteran to provide advising specifically to them? Can we create a separate business to advise veterans? There's a business opportunity. And then I went, whoops, I am an employer. I just hired four people. I am responsible for hiring a veteran.

Listening is an act of love

On NPR this morning I heard that StoryCorps is publishing a book called, "Listening is an Act of Love." I am not a big fan of StoryCorps (sweet but annoying), but the title struck me. Do you feel that gap, that feeling like, "This person is supposed to love me but doesn't seem to?" I bet it's because they're not really listening. How do you make someone listen? By listening first, I suppose.