Our nation remains a chaotic exercise in determining the
viability of applying our democratic theory to sustaining our American values in
an ever changing world. Keeping faith with our creed of liberty and freedom is
no less at peril from without and within than in every era since its
foundation. And just as in each age before ours, the protection and
preservation of our freedom demands our attention and diligence. So the current
contention over the Patriot Act’s renewal for national security interests and
groups demanding the Act’s expiration to protect against government invasion of
individual privacy rights. So the issue has been cast as a choice between privacy
rights versus national security, the lines have been drawn, sides have been
taken, and the struggle to win supremacy is underway.
But wait! This presents the issue as an ‘either/or’ contest,
as if there is no way to accomplish both simultaneously. How exactly was this
assessment and analysis made to reach that conclusion? Who decided that the
areas of concern over privacy were unable to be resolved by a proper
understanding of the requirements, constraints and goals of achieving effective
national security policies and maintaining individuals’ information and data
privacy from governmental intrusion or abuse by others? There is no “law of
physics” that requires that security and privacy interests are mutually
incompatible. There is no principle of democracy that necessitates that the
government cannot fulfill both these duties in the service to the public.
Why then isn’t there a solution that provides for both
public needs? What prevented anyone on either side of the conflict from solving
the total issue, not just their side of the issue? It’s leadership, or more to
the point it is a lack of leadership. Now there are many facets of failed
leadership that are at fault here: organizational, commercial, technical,
legal, civic, media, and the one that tops the list – Political.
The risk to privacy from government and thus the conflict
are planted in the foundational aspects of our society, in its political
fabric. So to fail in solving the issue in the nation’s best interests, it was
necessary for the political leaders to be at the forefront of that failure, to
be the leaders of failure and dysfunction. Nowhere was this inadequacy of
leadership so prevalent than in Congress and amongst the group of presidential
candidates seeking then ultimate in leadership positions.
Even in their insipid efforts to appear to be a leader the contenders
for the crown have exhibited only their typical approach of picking a side that
conforms to their media persona and strutting the peacock plumage appropriate
to their media-mating displays. But these sideshow tactics are not the steps of
successful leadership. Leaders will acquire the relevant and necessary
information on the entirety of the issue; both the side they may be initially
starting from and the side that they perceive as the problem, risk or threat.
Effective leaders will organize their resources and assign trusted and
knowledgeable individuals to formulate approaches and strategies to address the
problems. Where necessary, good leaders will consider the recommendation(s)
made from their organizations and choose the approach and strategy that they
see as the most effective and beneficial in achieving their entities’ goals.
Once a direction is selected the prudent leader will explain the decision; why
it the correct strategy, how it will achieve the desired objectives and
addresses all needs and contingencies, and how the strategy will be implemented
and managed to insure that the goals are achieved and the requirements met.
This is not what we have seen with the Patriot Act renewal
issue. Neither proponents from either side or any of our elected or aspiring public
figures have stepped up to these responsibilities. This is not to say that some
of them haven’t taken a position or demanded action, but they seem to be
addressing only the side that they see as the one that is more important than
the other, i.e., the choice of one side over the other.
In looking at the
failure to pass a legislative act to authorize national security policy before
the expiration deadline, what excuse will our leaders proffer? Those opposed to
the proposed authorization used tactics that didn’t allow sufficient time for
our leaders to get the job done. Because the strategy of waiting to the last minute
and hoping that that will force the opposition to acquiesce is a demonstration
of leadership.
Perhaps leadership is using procedural tactics to stall and
delay action is leadership. Except, where is the alternative decision, the
better strategy and solution that will accomplish the national security and the
protection of privacy needs that are so critical and important to the fabric of
our democracy? Was the preventing a vote strategy required because there wasn’t
sufficient time to provide a better solution? This would be despite the fact
that this issue didn’t spring up at the last minute, the issue has been in the
fore for years now, the date of the Patriot Act’s expiration was known and thus
a solution need date was obvious, or was it that no solution could be offered
to address the issues on the table because our ‘leaders’ are not able to lead.
If some claim that their ‘leader’ succeeded the question
should be succeeded at what? Is the issue resolved? No. Are the consequences
from the inaction better than the consequences of action? No. There must and
will still be legislation required to authorize national security activities
and absent an informed approach and strategy to address the conflicting social
interests the problem persists. What have we succeeded at? We have succeeded at
playing political theatre with a benefit to the political campaigns, to the
media minutes spent on the crisis (whichever side you may be on), and to the
continuity of dysfunction in government. Do we have a successful solution to
the issues, the risks, the public interests? So surely this is leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment