Tag Archives: politics

An Uncivil Servant: Thoughts on My Interview with Loretta Sanchez

Posted by —

8

I’m currently taking a course called Leadership in Democratic Organizations, and for one assignment I had to conduct an interview with a leader in/of my community. Since I am interested in getting into education reform/policy (the government side of things), I chose to interview Ms. Loretta Sanchez, my representative in the US House of Representatives (CA-47). Ms. Sanchez and I don’t see eye-to-eye on most issues, but my questions had little to do with politics; they were about her personal brand of leadership, her leadership philosophy. So I was super excited when I got word that she did indeed have time to meet with me.

When I say super excited, I mean super super excited. Pumped. Floored. Stoked. Psyched. Whatever the new cool, hip way of saying completely and entirely beside myself with anticipation, excitement, and delight is, that’s what I was. I was going to actually get to interview my Congresswoman! I was pumped. Way way way pumped.

Imagine then my utter disappointment when I arrived at Ms. Sanchez’s office and was treated with complete disdain, incivility, and even hostility. Yes. Really.

I was ushered into Ms. Sanchez’s office by her aide, but Ms. Sanchez was rifling around her desk. She didn’t greet me, she didn’t smile at me—she didn’t even look up. A few minutes passed, and I wondered if I was supposed to introduce myself first (where’s my copy of Debrett’s Guide to Meeting Congresspeople?). I took a step forward, and the aide intervened, told me to take a seat.

More time of being ignored passed. Finally, Ms. Sanchez came over. I extended my hand; we shook. I introduced myself briefly, thanked her for taking the time to speak with me, and told her I counted this as a real privilege. She stared at me blankly: no response, no words, no smile, nothing. She just sat down.

Before I run through a few specifics of the interview, let me say this:

Throughout the entire session, she was cold and unresponsive. She stared at me unblinkingly, and I was consistently made to feel like a waste of her time and an inconvenience. At no time did she encourage me, nod in understanding, or seem remotely interested in my questions. The atmosphere was hostile, heavy, and intimidating. Her manner was wholly dismissive, ungracious, and bordering on impolite. Had I been a journalist or someone in an antagonistic position, I might have expected that. However, as a mere graduate student from her alma mater, I did not feel that I warranted that degree (or any degree) of hostility. As a constituent, I feel that I warranted quite a bit more civility—at the least.

Overall, I was left with the impression of a woman without a leadership philosophy, a woman who is just sitting at the right desk. She spoke with little or no conviction about leadership. Her most inspired statements were the ones when she spoke about herself and her accomplishments (“I’m the only one doing the right thing,” she said—several times. The only one. The only one in Congress, the only one in Orange County) or against her dissenters (she freely denigrated those who did not agree with her, without remorse or caution). It may be that Ms. Sanchez has done a fair job voting and passing laws on the Hill—I do not know—but I have to say, I am ashamed to have such a person representing me.

On to the nitty-gritty:

One of my questions had to do with diversity and how to bring people into a shared vision. Ms. Sanchez ignored that aspect of the question and focused on how she deals with people who openly disagree with her views. Many Congresspeople, she told me, just avoid talking to the dissenters, but she believes that everyone has a right to speak. “Everyone gets a mic. Everyone gets their 3 minutes,” she said. And then she shrugged.

She went on, and while I have no exact quotes, the meaning I took away was this: you let people talk because once they have been given a chance to speak, they no longer have a right to complain. She never mentioned her desire to hear what people were saying, to see or understand their viewpoint, or to be remotely conciliatory toward them. She seemed rather like a demigod who, having thrown a favor down (the 3 minutes at the mic), is utterly indifferent to dissent.

Furthermore, in speaking about her dissenters, her tone—and even her words at several times—was mocking, dismissive, and just plain rude. I was incensed by some of the things she said. I was appalled that she was even saying them. Firstly, whether or not her constituents all support her, they are still the people she is supposed to represent—not people she is supposed to ridicule, generalize, and scorn. Secondly, she needs to hire a new PR person. Someone should have told her that, whatever her personal views on her constituents are, she can’t display that sort of vitriol publicly. #PRfail #yourefired

At another point, I asked how a leader in her position navigates between personal conscience and the will of her constituents. Surely some balance is required, I suggested. I have always been interested in the fine line that our representatives must walk, the line between representing the people and following their own conscience. Ms. Sanchez stared at me like I was an idiot, like I was from another planet—and an idiot on that planet. “If all my constituents decided that they wanted to line up all the 15-18 year-olds in front of a firing squad and shoot them, I would vote against it,” she informed me flatly. “I have a strong moral compass.”

I wanted to ask exactly how often that situation had arisen, but decorum prevailed, and I just nodded politely. (Clearly, she has a really high view of her constituents and the issues we might try and raise. If you’re in CA-47, you might want to think about that.)

Toward the end of the time, I asked what leadership quality she would most like to see in today’s young leaders. She thought for quite a while, hemmed and hawed (she did a lot of hemming and hawing throughout, actually, in a manner faintly reminiscent of a stereotypical “valley girl”). When she answered at last, she spoke of the need for selflessness, for service above self. You cannot have a leader without followers, and people don’t want to be led by selfish people. Also, a leader doesn’t always have to be a leader, she told me. She proceeded to say that, although she is a leader in politics, she is not a leader in church. “I don’t want to be the guy who hands out the bread things,” she told me flatly.

Would that be the “bread things” that other Catholics call “Christ’s own body”? I wanted to ask, but didn’t. #stupiddecorum

Funny as the quote is, though, it’s very telling about her view of leadership. Clearly she views leadership as a hat to be worn, something tied exclusively to formal position. In my class, we talk a lot about leading from any chair, about being a leader despite your official position, leading by example in whatever we do, etc. The current trend in leadership studies is toward empowering people to empower others, leading in the small things as well as the big things.

Her thoughts on selflessness were somewhat in line with the kind of leadership I am studying, and those thoughts might have carried more weight if she hadn’t answered my last question the way she did. I told her we were compiling a list of role models and leaders, and I asked who she admired and sought to emulate, who had shaped her into the leader she is.

“Is there anyone you think should go on the list?” I asked.

“Me,” she said.

I thought she was joking, but she wasn’t.

angst

Posted by —

1

I’m taking a break from politics…my angst is at an all-time high. I feel like there is no room for reasonable discussion, and even when I try to hear the other side, all I get is a lot of hate. I’m hugely uninterested in hate—especially since both sides have an over-abundance of that commodity at present. Knowing me, this break won’t last long…but anyway, for now, it’s on.

superday!

Posted by —

0

It’s here! The long-awaited, much-anticipated, often-imitated, never-duplicated SUPER TUESDAY!

Super Tuesday dawns dim on the west coast: there’s a grey marine layer covering everything, but we expect sunshine before too long. As the day wears on, yes, things should definitely heat up!

Up to bat today are no less than ten—you heard me right, ten—primaries and caucuses. Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Georgia, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, and Vermont* join the fray tonight in choosing a GOP nominee. That’s nearly 20% of the delegates for the overall party. Though there are fewer states participating tonight than in previous years’ Super Tuesday, it is still no small matter.

And don’t forget THE NICOLE CAUCUS—that equally-awesome, if not equally-important, event—is tonight as well. It is a night to remember! (More on that esteemed caucus still to come!)

Romney is favored to win all around on Super Tuesday, though with the same lukewarmness that has characterized all his previous wins. For a state-by-state list of predictions, check out the New York Times‘s fivethirtyeight blog.

*Also, Wyoming begins caucusing tonight, but they have until March 10 to report official results.

my republican conundrum

Posted by —

2

Here is the thing: I’m a Republican (as you’ve noticed). But I’m not a Tea Partyist. So I love John Boehner, but I can’t handle Rand Paul. I’m not on the far right; I’m in the middle. I’m moderate. I support the National Endowment for Humanities, but I also support the right to bear arms. I’m pro-life, and I see the need for public schools. I’m a moderate conservative Republican. I’m happy to be a Republican. I feel that it’s the party that best represents me, that best matches my view of the role of government. I tell myself that in the GOP, there are more people like me than not.

The other thing is, I don’t like conflict. I just don’t like it. I don’t like it when kids tease each other, I don’t like it when people are angry at me, and I don’t like believing that half of the nation (The Democrats) is some brand of evil I cannot trust. Call me naive, call me foolish. It’s just the way it is. I like to believe they are good people, too, just with a different sense of things. So when Obama says something about working together, about the mission itself being the key thing, about overcoming some differences even if we can’t bridge every gap, I want to applaud.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong. -State of the Union 2012

I agree with that. I may have certain moral views that don’t correlate with other Americans’, but we all think the economy needs to be fixed. I want Congress to work around the differences they can’t bridge and compromise on the ones they can.

But I feel like Washington doesn’t want me to want that. I feel this sort of pressure to stay locked into a stalemate. To hate the Other Side. When Obama calls for unity and teamwork, I feel like the Republicans are not supposed to agree with that. But why not? That is what I want. I’m not trying to betray my party. I’m not saying I’ll vote for Obama. I don’t suddenly support Obamacare or abortion. I just… I support working together. I think Obama has some bad ideas, but this one is good. And I support this good idea. Why isn’t that ok?

I want Congress to work together. I don’t think working together means we just do things my way. I think working together means we do things some my way and some your way. We may not like the whole solution, but we both agree its better than no solution at all. But it seems like Congress doesn’t want me to believe that. They want me to think that no solution is a sign of strength or firmness, of loyalty. (But they all have jobs, and can pay their bills, buy groceries, etc., so, ya know.) And I just really struggle with that. I don’t like the idea that I’m supposed to be more loyal to my party than my country. For the record, both parties pressure their constituents the same amount: Democrats are supposed to resist giving into Republicans, and Republicans are supposed to stand firm against the Democrats. THEY are the enemy, you know.

Only, I don’t know that. I don’t think they are. I think unemployment and a crumbling economy are the enemy.

This country is in trouble, and something needs to be done—soon. Sooner than soon. Like yesterday-was-too-late soon. And I don’t understand all the pressure to demonize the other side. What does that accomplish? Absolutely nothing, if we look at 2011. Stalemate after stalemate. Lack of progress after more lack of progress. Nothing begetting nothing. Ad nauseum.

So, Washington, since you tried stalemates and it didn’t work, why not try compromise and see how that goes. Why not try seeing the strength in other ideas, the virtue in the other side—there is some, you know, on both sides. Ok, so in the end, neither side will get everything they want. But we’ll all—all the people NOT in Congress, all the people who do struggle with joblessness, rising prices, and debt—we all get something. That’s a start, and in my book, it counts for a lot. It’s what we elected you to do: to make sure we got something, not to make sure the other side didn’t.

state of the union: the game

Posted by —

0

Tonight is the State of the Union address, broadcast live on various channels at 9PM EST (#SOTU on twitter). I’m sure there are lots of serious ways to approach this hallowed speech, but I gotta admit, I loved John Parkinson’s “10 Things to Watch for in the State of the Union address” on ABC.com.

In case the speech itself isn’t enough fun for you, I thought I’d set out the rules to The State of the Union: The Game. It’s a game my brothers and I played last year. It’s easy, fun, and vegan-friendly.

Each person makes a list of 8 words he or she thinks the President is likely to use in the speech. You can pick phrases or single words, but you can’t pick words like “the” or “or.” Real words, people!

Each person compares their list with the other players’ lists. Similar to Scattegories, if more than one person has chosen a particular word or phrase, neither party gets credit for it. So if two people put “economy” on their list, neither of them get points for it, regardless of how many times Obama uses that word. (Also, if you picked questionable words–like “the” or “and”—the other players can decide you must eliminate those words from your list, and you don’t get to replace them.)

Then you watch the speech. Mark down every time a word or phrase on your list is spoken by the President in the text of the speech. At the end, the most points win. In the case of a tie, winners are determined by thumb wrestling.

This year, my words are:

(oh, wait, I won’t reveal that till later.)

The SOPA/PIPA Protest & Mob Rule

Posted by —

1

A friend of mine, one of the staunchest opposers of SOPA/PIPA that I personally know, wrote me this (in response, I expect, to my “We weren’t born in 1776 for nuthin,” line):

Very interesting day for democracy, and I participated and am quite happy with the response. But it seems to me this is moving in the direction of ‘mob rule’—something our founding father’s tried to avoid in writing the constitution. Do you have any thoughts on this? – BG

This is a super interesting point to me. And, of course, I have Thoughts on it :)

First of all, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to classify the SOPA/PIPA protest with the mob (well, not THE MOB… just the mob. A mob, perhaps, is more accurate). Of course, when you are stirring up this kind of fervor you need a little bit of mobbyness; you need people to be excited and ready to take action—even if they aren’t experts on the issue at hand. You need a fever to catch. Today, Americans tend to be too ensconced in comfort to really participate in government—unless we know a little and get a bit heated about things. So I commend the tech folks: they did educate us on the basics—Fight for the Future’s video, for example. And yes, people did get caught up in things and react. Was it just chaos? A fever? Maybe. In any case, it seemed to work well for us :) If you can’t get people stirred up, they tend to just sit and watch. As to the 1776 allusion: I firmly believe a lot of the colonists got involved in the Revolutionary War movement simply because the fever caught them. Which, again, seems to have worked well for us :)

Of course, mob rule is a disaster—make no mistake about that. Think of the London riots last year—they started with a general protest and got utterly out of hand. People were hurt and killed, property was damaged. It was a complete nightmare. To me, that’s mob rule.

I don’t think that’s what’s going on with the SOPA/PIPA protests. First of all, I don’t think we run the risk of the SOPA/PIPA protests getting out of hand—since Congress cooperated (Gooood Government, goood government! Here, boy). Having gotten the desired result, most Americans are happy to go back to January 17—when they didn’t know or care about SOPA/PIPA. (I’m reminded of an e-card I read in 2008; it said something like, “I’m glad Obama got elected; now I can go back to not caring about politics.”)

Secondly, my impression of “mob rule” (correct me if I am wrong) is that it’s leaderless chaos. I think the SOPA/PIPA protest movement had a clear leader; it seems to me that the tech people were in control. People distrust the government, and as much as we love the entertainment industry, no one thinks they’re winning prizes for ethics; but people trust the friendly faces of Google, Wikipedia, WordPress, etc. If these tech guys were to come back and say, “They re-wrote SOPA, and we’re happy with it,” I think a lot of people would believe that and go with it. We look to them for our cues on this, I believe.  The tech folks (including Fight for the Future) really played this brilliantly. They got some internet giants together for a blackout movement, and they made a very sharp spearhead. They were organized, had some voices of leadership, created some good propaganda (that video, the graphics on Google, etc.)—and presto!

By doing this, they avoided the fate of the NDAA 2012 protesters. (Oh yes, there were a couple.) The NDAA 2012 law, to my mind, is even more dangerous than SOPA/PIPA, but because there was no clear leadership, the few protests never went anywhere.

A final thought: The whole SOPA/PIPA protest shows me that the government needs to change how they deal with their constituents. Now, more than ever, our leaders need to start communicating with us. They should learn a valuable lesson from the tech industry: the tech folks set out to protest this law; they educated people some with clear, logical reasoning; and they gained a mighty result. Congress needs to start communicating in a similar way. They need to talk to us, to relate their reasoning and the thoughts behind their actions/votes/bills. The American people hear a choir of voices on every issue: pundits, bloggers, protesters, etc. The most notably absent voice, however, the one voice we don’t hear, is that of the men and women who are supposed to be representing us.  They need to shed their ivory tower mentality; this isn’t the age of dark, cigar-smoke filled rooms with six guys making laws that no else hears about. This is the age of information, and “little brothers” are watching.

sweet caroline(a)

Posted by —

0

Before I begin my South Carolina primary post, let me catch you up on a couple of things:

  • Santorum was declared the winner of Iowa yesterday; a recount changed Romney’s 8-vote lead to a Santorum win by 34 votes.
  • Perry dropped out of the race. He’s throwing his support to Newt.
  • Huntsman dropped out, too. He’s endorsing Romney.

Okay, then. Onward and upward. Or at least kinda-sideways-ward, considering the election we’re dealing with. The action will be in South Carolina tomorrow, and it really looks like things might get a bit shaken up.

According to a finely-coiffed pundit on CNN, Iowa and New Hampshire “winnow candidates,” but South Carolina picks them. As least, as far as GOP nominees goes. We’ll have to see about that. It seemed that if Romney had won Iowa and New Hampshire, a South Carolina win would basically seal the deal for him. But then (as noted above) it turned out he didn’t win Iowa…and the polls are showing that he and Newt are neck-and-neck in SC now.

Gail Collins, one of the NYTimes most ferocious liberals, had this to say about the SCP:

…five of your six candidates could not be elected president if they were running against Millard Fillmore… - Gail Collins, “The Primary Primer.” New York Times, Jan. 12, 2012

I think that quote is hilarious…but I also wish I didn’t agree it quite so much :-/

It may also interest you to know that Herman Cain is still on the SC ballot—although he has dropped out of the race. Stephen Colbert has struck up an agreement with Cain, however; votes for Cain will be considered votes for Colbert. In fact, they’ll be holding a joint event today at 1pm EST.