The Leadership Framework: I Peter 5

I’ve been thinking about leadership as defined from Washington DC, politicians. Some Americans resent calling them “leaders” because they’re just elected to serve ‘We the People’. “We shouldn’t call them leaders” they say. I disagree. The responsibility for national security and economic freedom are voted on regularly. Not to mention the countless bills going through Congress amount to significant authority over our lives. We can debate about how much of that authority is legitimate, but it’s hard to argue that they wield significant power to direct cultural, spiritual and economic influence.

In Chapter 5 Peter lays out a framework for leaders and followers focused on growth benefiting everyone. We all have responsibility.

 “Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;” (verse 2)

The words “willingly” and “eagerly” suggest genuine interest in the well-being of the “flock”. Peter doesn’t say it here but the impression is that anyone who doesn’t share these characteristics has no business in the role of leadership (shepherding). Sadly we have too many examples of politicians who have enriched themselves and made deals at the expense of the public. But where a lot of Americans point to Washington and say “See, those are the bastards!” it’s only partly true.

The rest of us have a role here too.

 “Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another and be clothed with humility, for ‘God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (Verse 5)

When you replace “younger people” with citizens, or those being looked out for, it fits into our model a little better. We have a role to make sure those we elect have some understanding of Godly morality and fiscal responsibility. This is tougher than it sounds. We can’t throw all responsibility for morality, spending and security on to some faceless crowd that resides in the ‘swamp’. Peter is clear that “leaders” have a larger responsibility under God, but those being led aren’t given a pass either.  

It’s easy to dismiss this as an elder in the faith writing to future believers and suggesting a kind of ‘best practices’ for getting along. True, this is written for believers (disciples) but the framework is ideal for any kind of business or non-profit. It’s an ordered way to live the most effective and efficient life. Another thing that isn’t stated but is understood is that when these principles aren’t followed life gets out of order. Greed takes over at the top or rebellion bubbles up from the bottom.

At a certain point we forget what the flash point was and ‘We the People’ stop listening to the leaders. The leaders become entrenched in personal deal making, dishonest gain and selfish pursuits. After a number of years the system perpetuates until it’s hard to remember who the real culprits are.

The spending is truly out of control and debt is a massive time bomb. But how many of us can say we’ve made perfect financial choices? Is the debt problem really just a federal issue? How about cultural and moral issues? Can we really hang all of it on politicians?

There are rewards for all of us when we follow this plan, both for leaders and followers. For leaders: “…when the chief Shepherd [Christ] appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.”  (Verse 4)

So there is a larger goal to seek then momentary riches and short term perks. 

For followers: “Therefore humble yourselves under the hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.” (verse 6-7)

The theme here for both is to be submissive to a larger cause, a more meaningful approach to life that pays out in influence. There is a purpose in whatever short-term suffering we go through. The difficulty is in submitting to leaders, both political and non-political, who act frivolous and immoral. But behavior is ultimately judged by God.

Peter encourages growth in understanding and responsibility. “But may the God of all grace, who called us to His eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a while, perfect, establish, strengthen, and settle you.” (verse 10)

In other words, there is an end to current frustrations and a larger picture will emerge, when we settle our hearts and trust in the framework.

Pushing it

I ran 17.5 miles on Saturday! I almost can’t believe I typed that out.

The Corona-virus has sidelined every major event in the area. Sports are done, school is out, churches are closed and most people are staying in doors for as long as they need to. I guess going outside is OK but the weather is mostly rainy and cold. Saturday was a nice break. It started out cold but the sun came up shortly after we left the store and provided us with a little warmth. I still had on two shirts and cold gear pants though. I think the temperature was around 33 or 34 when we left. Most had on at least a long sleeve shirt and gloves. 

Some crazies had shorts and one guy was out there in a tank top.

I was pleased that Runners World didn’t cancel the event. Instead they spread people out a little further throughout the run. The idea with spreading out is the whole ‘social distancing’ thing, 6 feet (I think) apart. There was no reason to cancel and I’m glad they left it up to each runner to decide for themselves whether or not to show up. The training program through the store breaks everyone into two groups, half marathoners and full marathoners. Often both groups run the same route but the longer marathon group might double up on it. That’s what happened Saturday. The shorter group of half marathoners (of which I’m a part) ran an 8 mile out and back through the heart of Tulsa.

The marathoners did a second loop making it 19 miles after a quick water break and a snack. I planned on stopping with my group after the first route but my brother encouraged me to keep going. “See how much you can get” he said. I intended to get about 2 miles in and turn around. But I went anyway. Two things happened along the way that helped me out. My left knee began to ache in that dull way when you’ve pushed it too far. It wasn’t a sharp oh-no-what-was-that pain, just a muscle begging to stop. I prayed about it. One of those ‘God just get me through this’ kind of things. The throbbing went away. Thank You Lord!

The girl next to me running essentially the same pace gave me a gel pack that tasted like peanut butter and jelly. It did the trick for most of the way. I regained enough strength to carry on until that 17.5 mile mark. The reason I know it was 17.5 is that the runner next to me keeping pace said “Only one and half to go.” I was basically shuffling by this point just trying to keep it together. So I stopped and walked most of the way back with some intermittent running along the way. It must have looked pitiful because I was physically wiped out. I couldn’t have been happier that I pushed it a little bit.

All told I went 19 miles but only ran 17.5. Sometimes it’s good to push it.

Wuhan Blues

There is hardly anything to write or think about that isn’t affected by the Wuhan virus. 

Sports are on hold, even down to the high school and little league level. News is mostly just reports about the how the economy is grinding to a halt and Congress is putting some spending package together to reassure the jittery markets. Mitt Romney wants to give everyone $1000 stimulus, the administration wants to roll back regulations on business. Others are angling for an all of the above strategy and opting for a throw everything at the wall approach. The Fed chairman cut the interest rate by a quarter point the other day and it made zero difference. Not that I blame any of them. These moves are mostly cautionary and meant to reassure buyers that all is well.

This is very new territory for everyone and although I think this a giant overreaction I can’t say I’d do it differently. They have better information from medical experts. The problem is medical experts will ALWAYS recommend this very thing. No one wants to be the one who said “Ahhhh. . . it’ll prolly blow over, nothing to see here” only to have hospitals overrun with sick and dying while the healthy escape like those prisoners from The Fugitive after the bus rolled over. So we get the same result each time, an ‘abundance of caution’. To doctors responsible for containing the spread of a contagion there is no such thing as too drastic a step. 

Judges and lawyers get criticized for their authoritarian impulses, doctors have them both beat though. I think it's our societal deference to doctors as a whole that makes any criticism of their opinions seem like foolishness. 

Partly I’m struggling to put the pieces together on how to feel about this thing. Should I be angry at the Chinese for not alerting others about the outbreak and danger to travelers? Yes, but that’s like being angry about rain-out ball games in April; they happen regularly and you have to account for it. Malfeasance is the Beijing way, they went after journalists who reported on the disease instead of thanking them. The problem is they want to be a world player but still govern their country by crushing dissent. You can’t have it both ways; eventually something like this happens and reminds everyone that China is still communist.

Is this overreach in shutting down restaurants and health clubs and movie theaters within the authority of American governments at any level? No, but I’m not complaining for a couple of reasons. This really is a first and it’s not like this happens every 5 years or so. The concern with libertarian types is that governments can use these events to impose strict controls. That’s true but it’s clear to me from watching even one press conference that the government is playing catch up. It’s not to say they are doing a terrible job but what does a good job look like exactly? It’s not like we have a long history of managing these panics.

And for Democrats who think Trump is way over his head on this, let this be exhibit A in why Republicans prefer a very small, limited government.

It wouldn't look much different under a Democrat. The non-political actors would be essentially the same, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and whichever private/public partnership were put in place. One positive is in letting the state and local governments figure out ground level stuff. It won’t all work well but the more rigid and specific the federal response is the tougher it becomes to make it work locally. Most of this will be a wait and see what works kind of thing. As long as the feds makes funding available when it’s needed, they’ve done most of their job. Also removing a lot of the red tape that comes with developing a test and vaccine should be a priority.

As a Christian I’m glad Mike Pence is the point man on this. He strikes me as someone who defers to others when he needs to and genuinely works toward fixing a problem. He is a praying man and I find that reassuring.  

Trade: Winners and Losers

 

The other day a friend started a back and forth, on Facebook, about subsidies and American farm policy. It came up that most people don’t realize that farmers are a heavily subsidized group. It’s always tough to know what people understand and don’t about the economy. I’m surprised nearly every day at how little I know. I do understand that subsidies create distortions in the price of a thing. For example, what does an MRI actually cost? After the insurance pays its portion we get a bill. How much of that is distorted by the hospital? If just this one sector of the US economy is so distorted, how bad is it for trade deals?

Trade between two countries is tricky enough to manage. It gets trickier when you factor in other countries for group deals. I get the impulse to collectivize (sorry, bad word) “unionize” into a large trading bloc and take advantage of lower pricing. That’s the whole point of trade anyway, get the best rate. The size of the community determines the size of the deal.

It’s the same reason you get better health care plans with a national company like Target instead of a mom and pop retailer. But who can keep up with these big deals and how can we really determine who the winners and losers are? I think going back 20 years or more gives a clearer picture on how a deal turned out.

Trump and Co just rewrote the original NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) deal that stood since the early nineties among the US, Mexico and Canada. No one seems to know if the original deal was good or bad though. Like everything else encompassing such varied interests, it depends on who you ask. Trump didn’t like it, we know that, and the new deal he signed (United States Mexico Canada Agreement or USMCA) did add some extra concessions from Canada on milk subsidies, opening up that market to US dairy. They added some incentives for car and truck makers too, while beefing up the intellectual property laws.

No I didn’t read it, I just scanned through a few summaries.

NAFTA was much maligned for sending American jobs to Mexico. Trump’s biggest bugaboo about NAFTA, and the thing everyone complained about, is the loss of manufacturing. Companies moved south of the border for the lower wages, many of them just threatened to in order to keep the unions at bay. But the argument from big business and government was that tariffs will go away and American consumers will have lower prices.

All of that turned out to be true, but it is only one side of the argument. Trade increased overall, and the cost of producing, selling, shipping and taxing fell. That was the main point of NAFTA--get the best deal for American consumers.

Automobile manufacturing didn't do a well under NAFTA. Factory workers couldn’t rake in loot like they did in the eighties making Chrysler LeBarons and doing 65 hours a week. The unions had a large part in making it tough for younger workers to make the same money. Steep legacy costs practically ensured that no one would get the sweet deal the old timers had. Eventually the ones on the golf course and in the retirement community outnumber the ones actually building the cars. No industry can carry on like this forever. It’s like a bad welfare scheme but instead the many supporting the few, the few support the many. 

Bernie Sanders might love it but most of us know it won’t work for long.

So the auto industry was in trouble before NAFTA came along but international trade was already heading in this direction. The goal of every company that builds and buys is to reduce the cost of doing so. The most direct way is to make deals with companies we already trade with a lot, Canada and Mexico. I think trade deals are the future of business but I don’t think every deal is beneficial.

So for my question at the beginning, who wins and who losses? Consumers win in both NAFTA and the new USMCA. I can’t say for sure that manufacturing will win, or rather that workers in factories will win. I’m all for keeping jobs in this country but the wages from the eighties were artificially high. The US was king in both domestic and international sales but the Japanese started making headway. In other words, few countries could compete on a big level.

I’d prefer a totally free market in which we didn’t use subsidies or need international trade deals. Free markets are messy though and big business and government always want to tweak the market one way or another. It’s the way things are until we can figure out a way to fix the whole mess. 

When I have an answer I’ll be sure to share it on Facebook.