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.

Tulsa Track Workout

“I need to bring a watch next time.”

 That’s the thought that kept circling through my head after I stopped my lap at the track last week. I finally went to the University track here in Tulsa for some speed work. I’ve wanted to do this for a while but because of work I haven’t been able to get there. The Tulsa running club meets here every week and offers training tips for all runners, serious and beginner. Last week it rained so last Tuesday was my first day. I was pleasantly surprised to see both a few people who had asked me on occasion to come. 

Also I bumped into a guy I go to church with and my sister in law showed up later. I enjoyed the hell out of it to put it simply. I never run like that, sprinting and gasping followed by more sprinting and gasping. I’m a distance runner (jogger) so my pace is around 9:45 a mile. On the quick 1200 meter laps I wasn’t sure what group to run in so I just jumped in with Lancy (the guy from church) at 8:50 per mile. I figured it was probably a little slow but nothing is worse than overestimating your speed.

It seems the ideal way to run the track is to keep the same time on every lap. At least that's how it was explained to me. If you can’t keep the same pace on every pass, run in a slower group until you can. I didn’t have a watch but I had some idea of my pace thanks to others keeping time, I managed around 5:45 per 1200 meters. Next time I’ll bring a watch, or put the phone in my pocket.

The event went like this. We were to run 3 times around the track and walk a half, starting another 3 laps and another half lap of walking. We did that 4 times which was 4800 meters (I think). 1200 meters in each grouping of 3. I needed that for sure. It feels good to push yourself on a short distance run. I never sprinted though. I’ve been told by people who run regularly that I need to change up my routine and mix in some speed work. I should do a little research on exactly why that is. It’s probably the same reason you don’t lift the same weight every time you hit the gym, changing routine confuses the muscles for better gains.

Once I get back into my work routine of staying till 6:00 it’s all over for the track run. Unless I can find some way to get off work at 5:30 on Tuesday, I’ll miss the rest of the workouts. I guess in the summer there is a morning class at that kicks off before work. That I could do. The way my routine is structured I prefer the morning runs to the evening. My friends go in the evening though and I don’t have many friends. If I can figure out how to leave work early than morning classes won’t be necessary. My position might be changing at work anyway so maybe there is good news on the horizon. I’m all in on the running thing. When I started getting serious I didn’t know if I could stick with it all the way. 

Now I’m improving every few months and excited about it.  The extra pounds are peeling off too.

Work and Play

I saw an old picture of myself from Facebook. 

You know the ones. They pop up on your scroll and ask you if you want to share. Never-mind that you already shared some years ago and friends commented. It was obviously well received by them or FB wouldn’t suggest that you punish your friends and family again. I say it was an “old” photo but what is “old” really? A friend took the shot on a tour of the Shanghai bay while we rode around clicking everything in sight from freighters stacked with shipping containers to far away views of the city sky line. It wasn’t picturesque in the way that seeing the Rocky Mountains is picturesque. Nor was it quaint and lovely like a bed and breakfast in a New England town. It was smoggy and gross, even the weather seemed to have it out for us that day. The sun never appeared. Of course if it did we would have seen the oily barges floating by in glisteny detail. The sun always makes the smog covered city a little worse. It brightens up corners but mostly creates a soupy mess. 

Here is the strange thing, I don’t mind gritty industrial landscapes and soot covered equipment. Like most people I’d opt for a more relaxing trip filled with beaches and sunshine or fishing spots in sparse cabins. For vacations I always want beauty and presentation. We adore mountains and lakes because of the natural wonder in God’s creation. Nothing says ‘awesome God’ like Yellowstone National Park or the Grand Canyon. China has a lot of gorgeous lakes and mountains too. Why then would anyone see the beauty (if that’s the word) in grimy industrial landscapes and busy ports? Here’s a hint, it’s in the process.

I used to do this demonstration during my brief teaching adventure. I held up a picture of an aerial view of New York City during the day with the sun shining on the buildings and another black and white photo of an early twentieth century textile factory floor. My idea was the beautiful city represented a positive development, prosperous and inviting; the black and white photo represented a negative development, ugly and shameful. A lot of the factory workers from the photo were kids with no shoes working the looms, dirty faces and rough looks. I hoped to sort the capitalists from the progressives, to get a feel for their notions about human nature. I asked the kids in my classroom which image best represented capitalism. No one understood what I was getting at. 

If no one gets your examples you’re doing them wrong. Kids aren't thinking about economics or history, they just want lunch.

 American History is mostly taught by progressives with a negative view toward capitalism. They see young kids making pennies a day and working 12 hours. They rightly worry about working ages and conditions but ignore the benefits to society of the work itself. They don’t see the finished work, the architecture and design. We don’t get modern cities without the industrial revolution. We don’t get the conveniences without the grime and grit. There is a trend in building, hard work then play. We usually sort out working conditions and ages along the way. Work is dirty and difficult but concerned with providing for the next generation. Play is that next generation, living healthy and comfortable.

If you want poor countries to become rich countries it’s work and then play.

If it means jobs as opposed to government checks for subsisting most will take the dirty air for a while. This isn’t giving China a pass either. They are very much a Communist country with an awful record on the environment. But it has managed to set certain parts of the economy lose. In that way it felt a bit like a roaring free market to an outsider. Obviously foreigners disagree on a lot regarding China but most agree that from 2003 to 2010 the economy roared. At least it did until the most powerful modern president, Xi Jinping, started gobbling up titles like steamed buns. It wasn’t just him though.

 China wasn’t quite the investment it used to be after the housing crash in the U.S. around 2008. American corporations began complaining much louder about the intellectual property theft and the hostile environment for making money. You can always count on corporate entities to do the right thing when the profits get thin.

The comparisons to American industry in the late 19^th century and China’s just 20 years ago is overwrought. American freedom and laissez faire capitalism built the strongest economy in the world; China opened up just enough and put some of their statist thinking on the shelf. But the hope for China in recent years was that it would develop like the US had, cleaner energy, better working conditions, greater freedoms and better quality of life. This may have always been a sucker’s bet, a belief for the rube NGOs to cling to while the business made whatever money they could suck out of the place.

 Sadly it looks like China was never going to open up enough to change the politics of place. The transition for authoritarian rule to democratic norms worked for South Korea and Taiwan, why not China?

When I think back to that tour boat pic I remember how I imagined the country looked 20 years before and what it might look like if I came back again in 20 years. Ideally the shipping lanes would still be open, cranes loading freighters and tugs pushing them out to sea. The real test is in the countryside and the smaller cities though. How might folks be living there? Would they be able to invest money in a growing economy and criticize the government? How about church, would they be able to attend a Protestant church legally? Would there be a noticeable middle class? How about the work/play ratio, are the kids of the factory generation living a little better?

With the benefit of hindsight I doubt I considered those issues back then. I was probably like my students staring blankly at the two visions of capitalism, thinking intently about it and wondering “how much longer till lunch?”

Naturally Right

 

I took this meme from Reddit because it’s funny. I think it provides us with a window into the way American citizens incorrectly view the founding. This is the Constitutional Convention, it has to be or the joke doesn’t work. Did America's founders sit down and discuss how much freedom to permit to the newly formed states, people? Who did they try to protect, the citizens or the government?

America is fundamentally different because it recognized the rights of individuals and restricted the government's ability to hamper them. The idea that the founders 'decided' to allow guns gets it completely backward. The right to own guns and speak freely are inherent rights, or inalienable. In other words they can't be taken away. Why? because they are God given (natural) and an essential part of what makes people human. If God created humans with certain inherent freedoms than who can really take them? Can you steal a person’s character or just suppress it?

I remember reading a newspaper opinion years ago that took a dim view of the ultra rich in America. I think the point of it was that ‘we shouldn't be overly excited when someone like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett gives money to charity. The gifts are appreciated but the largess of the rich is because of this country’s willingness to provide opportunities for them. ‘We' as a society allowed them to make the money through friendly laws and easy regulation. Nonsense. It’s true they had the good fortune to apply themselves in a country that respects diligence. They also might have had a better start through education or skill, Gates had both. None of that is because “We” the planners allowed it.

 It's an attitude that puts the authority into the hands of a government (planners) and not the 'consent of the governed'. It's like the saying the government allowed you to become rich, when the truth is our laws support the ability of citizens to pursue happiness. Just because countries everywhere got this wrong doesn't mean we should too. It’s important to see the Constitution as a complete break from that philosophy of kings and tyrants. It makes the individual the centerpiece, the rational being seeking liberty. The Constitution was meant to put restrictions on government and allow natural processes to flourish. Natural processes included freely worshiping God or not, setting up a business or working for one, buying and selling property.  

Individuals get hung up on things like guns because of the danger they pose in the hands of criminals. But they miss the essential part of the Second Amendment which is not that the founders 'allowed us to have guns'. This is insulting. They recognized that restrictions on a person's life and property were not within their purview. It was none of their damn business and they knew it. So they put hefty restrictions on the government around certain things, speech and firearms are just some of the most important.

We can argue all day about what limits are appropriate on speech and weapons. Courts have mostly held very lose restrictions on speech and thankfully, guns laws are getting looser all the time. Most people don't believe you should be allowed to keep a Mark 19 grenade launcher in your garage mounted on an old F150. Although it's tough for me to think of a better way to spend a Saturday than driving through open land firing at targets. Cities have restrictions that rural communities would never have. It makes sense to a degree but if it infringes on an individual's basic freedom it has to go. The Second Amendment is not without restrictions though and courts constantly hear new arguments.

You aren’t allowed to keep a howitzer in your driveway. This is primarily an order of magnitude problem. Firearms don't pose this enormous downside. It's why we restrict fully automatic weapons with some exceptions. A lot of my libertarian friends think drugs fall into the same category and should come with no restrictions. I don't, but that's a discussion for another day. I understand the logic, but drugs to me are the howitzer that kills thousands even if most people can get high and function like an adult. 

None of this is to say that our laws are perfect or beneficial to everyone. But the principle that the founders (Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton) were concerned with what to grant the new citizens is plainly wrong. They always began by restricting the government first.

I know the meme is just a joke. It's a funny way to show how different our country is from others. We love guns. We love to talk. We never shut up actually. But we live in an age when so much is planned and orchestrated that it's important to remember the core principle of the founding, individual liberty through natural rights.