What I Hope We Learn from Scott McClellan

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense

“Doing the right thing is not rocket science.”

This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding
in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more
frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow
and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first
met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the
concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant. Being a
linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to
develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This
“event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving
as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration,
has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work
with me for a while.

After practicing law and providing business management consulting
services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major
personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a
motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby
boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our
team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and
universities to engage students in a discussion about personal
responsibility.

We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered
from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in
conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision
theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to
encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist
students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the
consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking
personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to
come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and
societal issues.

One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of
issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding
subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will
improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and
creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the
problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and
sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions.
The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process
and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our
sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be
delivered during our workshops and other projects.

Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the
concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way”
to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to
do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about
it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership
meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event.
What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different
attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single
one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you
have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of
action to take, it is a powerful force.

In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did
not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other
reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I
supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it
came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that
both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the
Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that
situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth;
here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so,
it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did
this happen?”

The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the
Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it
was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by
noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to
deceive.”

This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about
numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones.
It also does not matter the political party or President in office.
Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting
that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare
well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has
become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on
messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see
how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration
had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we
wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how
they could have done the right thing.

Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came
to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first
surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and
the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat
for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To
put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was,
in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply
wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf
based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could
have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the
truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a
moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost
guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry
on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.

Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third
example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once
he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work
that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was
bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice
President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his
Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the
causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three
- we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are.
When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our
involvement, and consider changing course.

I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political
evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still
stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I
would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the
worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who
blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek
rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not
actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility
to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or
they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands
up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.

Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting
there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s
simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the
way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was
making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and
in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do
whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think
or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And
I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever
really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a
mistake.”

Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the
immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass
blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for
example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and
natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some
of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without
developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the
Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s
unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We
can’t have our cake and eat it too.

So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s
not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me
see clearly.

© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
http://www.theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com
.

Loading