The Fierce Urgency of How

My reaction to the news that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed to yet another debate, this one on April 16, in Philadelphia:

Be still my heart!

Having forsworn ever watching another so-called debate for fear of dying from Trivialitis -- but apparently having a strong self-destructive urge -- I fear I will once again find myself hunkered down in front of my television to watch the candidates swap one-liners.

Barack will promise to bring us all together so that the nation can move forward. He'll again assert his prewar opposition to Iraq and promise to bring our troops home. He'll tell us yet again that we have to be as careful bringing them home as we were careless sending them in. He'll assure Pennsylvania voters that he's going to renegotiate NAFTA. And, of course, he'll promise us universal health care, middle-class tax relief, better schools, secure borders, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, and energy independence. And no doubt we'll hear yet again about how John McCain would have us stay in Iraq for the next hundred years.

Hillary will tell us how ready she is to be Commander-in-Chief on Day One. She too will repeat all the lofty goals she and her opponent share -- universal health care (but leaving no one out), energy independence, better teachers and smaller classrooms, an exit strategy for Iraq (two brigades a month), the NAFTA riff, secure borders, and of course middle-class tax relief, better schools, a rescue plan for victims of Katrina and sub-prime mortgages, energy independence, and John McCain's 100-year-war.

But unless they have some kind of joint epiphany, neither candidate will talk about how they view the Constitution, the limits of presidential power, secretive government, how they will reach consensus with the Congress, separation of church and state, Guantanamo, Bagram, the CIA's secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, the respective checks-and-balances roles of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government -- and a host of other mismanaged issues that have arguably assured George W. Bush one of the most pitiful legacies of any president in our history.

Our two Democratic contenders -- and the TV anchors who moderate these colloquies -- apparently believe that discussion of such issues is so far down in the weeds that viewers' eyes will instantly glaze over and the entire nation will scramble for the remote.

But if they think of what a lot of the rest of us see as existential issues as being beyond the voters' comprehension, I wonder how they view an equally important question: How?

By which I mean that lofty visions and even good strategies don't answer the question of how you're going to go about actually getting things done -- swiftly, efficiently, responsibly, accountably.

Like HOW you're going to avoid another Heck-of-a-job-Brownie moment. HOW you're going to bring us energy independence. HOW you're going to secure a peaceful Middle East. HOW you're going to end aggressive extremism. HOW you're going to execute your health care plan, put better teachers in smaller classes, and all the rest.

Dealing with the HOW is arguably even more important than figuring out the WHAT. HOW you're going to implement good strategies raises issues of leadership and management. It's about bringing people into government who are not merely loyal or ideologically driven, but able and experienced. Grown-ups who have proven track records in the kinds of jobs they're getting appointed to. And who have demonstrable records of integrity and leadership.

A new president has the authority to make more than 3,000 "political" appointments. But political appointees don't necessarily have to be synonymous with party hacks or ideologues. That there will have to be some of those is a given -- the person who lands in the Oval Office inevitably has lots of political favors to repay.

But, beyond what should be a relative few, a president's ability to lead the government will depend on his ability to find and attract those who know how to manage the government. Who are willing to accept personal accountability for their performance. And who know how to use the institutional memories of our civil servants -- our bureaucracy -- to participate professionally in the execution of good plans and policies.

Why am I so hung up on the importance of HOW?

Well, I had the privilege of sweeping into the nation's capital as a very minor player with "the best and the brightest" who followed John F. Kennedy to the presidency. I saw first-hand how the best of the brightest showed their leadership qualities by motivating our career civil servants by respecting their aggregate knowledge and experience. How they looked to the permanent government cadre to help craft practical plans and goals and to organize their work to optimize their chances of achieving those goals.

I also saw the converse. I saw too many bright people in too many very senior positions who believed that each of their brilliant ideas was brand-new. Who became almost delusional about their mission to reinvent government. Who became intellectually corrupted by the power they thought they wielded.

And I saw those people fail.

A new president needs to understand the high price of political patronage. That understanding will go a long way toward putting the right people in the right slots. And having the right people in the right slots will give the new president at least a shot at making things work.

And having no more Brownies.

And helping to restore the people's confidence in their government.

Comments

[JasonEverettMiller]

The what is easier to explain in 30 seconds. The how requires a bit of investigation on the part of the audience. Thankfully, we have the Internets and the Google. Here is a 52-minute, uncut interview with the editorial board of the SF Chronicle that outlines some of the how: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2008/01/18/MNSNUH8DR.DTL.

[scandinavian]

of course, internet is great! thank you for the hint.

[S1m0n]

If the american people wanted a wonk, Hillary Clinton's candidacy wouldn't be plunging from the clouds with its ass on fire.

[CaptainObvious]

Clever title. If you are relying on the television coverage to get a sense of the "Hows", while you play couch potato, it is already too late. Go ahead and turn on Faux News, at least you might have a chance to see some "T&A" while you consume your vapid, tabloid quality "Infotainment". Of course it's already been pointed out that the answers to your questions can be found on the candidate's web sites. I know, reading is boring - but you might learn something.

I take it you haven't heard his speech - you should go listen to it now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU

Obama wasn't my first choice, though he was in the top 5. After yesterday's speech, I'm declaring my status as an Obamaniac. He pulled the curtain back and revealed his potential to be a Great President.

[fmmcfarren]

I agree.
But is now the time for that? Certainly during the campaign would be appropriate, but is it wise to do this during the Dem primary?
Let's say Obama takes a moment, like he did on Tuesday, and lays how some HOW. 2 hours later, people are ripping him to shreds over raising taxes, or saying how FUBAR Iraq and Afghanistan are. Or one of the Opposition campaigns says he is weak because he doesn't think diplomacy should come at the tip of a sword, and that economics will do more to end extremism. Not to mention, that it will require not only congress but the complicity of the media and an engaged electorate to get health care taken care of. So he does the noble thing, he tells the truth. But what if he is the only one?

I need to believe in something again. I need to have hope in my government and my country. I want to dedicate my life to the pursuit of a more perfect union. The old guard's time has come. It is our turn now. Lets get the house first, before we start talking about renovations and contractors. 2 people want to keep things the same, let's not forget that.

[1dogs2]

The fundamental problem is with the self-important (and in many cases none-too-bright) media "stars" and the networks that set the rules of the debate, who consider the cadidates' swapping zingers entertaining and serious policy discussions boring. I suggest that PBS set aside several hours in which, say, Gwer Ifel identifies a subject and then acts as timekeeper/referee as each candidate is given 15 minutes to speak on the subject and another 5 to respond to the other candidate. True, only 6 topics would be addressed in that time, and 15-20 minutes to address major issues is not enough, but it would certainly be better than what we've been fed so far.

[scandinavian]

i agree 100%. so, how can we make sure the how-questions get to be asked in debates?