Strength
Yesterday, I mentioned the importance of tough political stands. Today, I read an article from a local journal about Dixie State College that illustrates the point.
Washington County is the fastest growing part of the state. The community's opportunities and needs are rapidly changing. Shortly before I took office, it became obvious that the mission of the community's college also had to change to keep up, similar to what had been happening with Utah County and UVSC. The Governor at that time and the Board of Regents strongly objected to turning Dixie College into a four-year institution. And that, of course, is pretty tough opposition.
But the community knew that it had to happen. Then-Rep. Bill Hickman (now, Senator Hickman) bowed his neck and muscled the change to 4-year status though the legislature.
It was the right thing to do. The four-year status has helped attract great businesses to the area and helped increase the standard of living. And the change was good for the students and the institution. In fact, the Regents have just established an expanded mission for Dixie State College, authorizing 10 additional baccalaureate degrees. Importantly, the change to 4-year status has not hurt SUU, which some feared it would. To the contrary, SUU recently received praise as being one of the 10 best institutions in the nation in terms of value to the student.
Like a pitcher, like a doctor, like anyone in a performance-based environment, elected leaders need to figure out how to succeed, not put a shiny gloss on defeat. When Bill's community and constituents needed a big win, he came through. Not by compromise. Not by selling his position short. But simply by relentlessly banging away and by refusing to take "no" for an answer. He taught me an important lesson: a lawmaker cannot be effective, unless he is willing, when necessary, to stand absolutely firm behind a position and unless he is strong enough to bring others to that position.
Washington County is the fastest growing part of the state. The community's opportunities and needs are rapidly changing. Shortly before I took office, it became obvious that the mission of the community's college also had to change to keep up, similar to what had been happening with Utah County and UVSC. The Governor at that time and the Board of Regents strongly objected to turning Dixie College into a four-year institution. And that, of course, is pretty tough opposition.
But the community knew that it had to happen. Then-Rep. Bill Hickman (now, Senator Hickman) bowed his neck and muscled the change to 4-year status though the legislature.
It was the right thing to do. The four-year status has helped attract great businesses to the area and helped increase the standard of living. And the change was good for the students and the institution. In fact, the Regents have just established an expanded mission for Dixie State College, authorizing 10 additional baccalaureate degrees. Importantly, the change to 4-year status has not hurt SUU, which some feared it would. To the contrary, SUU recently received praise as being one of the 10 best institutions in the nation in terms of value to the student.
Like a pitcher, like a doctor, like anyone in a performance-based environment, elected leaders need to figure out how to succeed, not put a shiny gloss on defeat. When Bill's community and constituents needed a big win, he came through. Not by compromise. Not by selling his position short. But simply by relentlessly banging away and by refusing to take "no" for an answer. He taught me an important lesson: a lawmaker cannot be effective, unless he is willing, when necessary, to stand absolutely firm behind a position and unless he is strong enough to bring others to that position.
posted by steve u. at 7/09/2005
Subscribe
6 Comments:
No one suggests that anyone should be a quitter. Determination is a lofty goal, and when combined with integrity, it can be unbeatable. The bone of contention that I have with this concept focuses on how one finally achieves their goal. Whether you look at the issue in political terms, or in terms of athletics, the answer is the same. It's called "situational play". This means that when there are 2 strikes, you still try to get on base. THAT goal hasn't changed. You shorten your swing, hit to the opposite field, protect the plate, butcher-boy, etc. It doesn't mean you swing as hard as you can every time. Pigheadedness like this can get you into more trouble. You will hit your share of home runs, but also strike-out quite often.
Determination to follow through on political policy is much the same. When a policy is necessary, and ultimately good for the general population, it deserves to be pushed. Yet strategies change as new information is gathered. A hard push here, schmoozing there, a behind the door handshake, and suddely it all works out.
You speak of the need to be flexible to be effective. Yes, that is needed at times. But, do you ever think that inflexibility is called for? And if so, do you see it effectively exercised much by political leaders?
I think of President Reagan and the Cold War. The Soviet empire was a horrible thing, for the people in the empire and the rest of the world. President Reagan was firm on that point. People like Henry Kissinger thought he was a fanatic. Even some of his main supporters thought President Reagan had gone too far, when he left Reykjavik without compromising and closing a deal.
But that firmness that did not merely tolerate a bad situation helped lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. We could talk about Churchill in the same way, and I wonder whether history won't refer to the firm resolve of President Bush and Mr. Blair with the same reverence.
I imagine that history will point in a very different direction for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair. Reagan's determination was isoalting the Soviets, spending immense dollars on defense, and causing them to use up the last of their funds 'til there were none left. Once broke, The Soviets had no choice but to come around. Quite a different tactic than the one used now...don't you think?
The inflexability of the Bush/Blair duo has, and will continune to create more problems than good. Do you really believe that standard war strategies, focused on a country that has questrionable links to terrorism, is going to do any good. Listen to the President..."We're winning". Listen to the Vice-President..."Last Throes". Listen to Rummy..."could be 12 more years". Listen to the generals..."more insurgents now than before".
So tell me...what's working? Do you really believe that those who plant the bombs in London are returning to the bettlefield in Iraq? Do you really believe that the battlefield is fraust with al-qaeda fighter, or (due to America's decision to attack) with a bunch of people who consider themselves freedom fighters who are being convinced by others to fight the American infadel. It is these others we seek. The ones who hide in Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Suadi Arabia, London, NY, etc. Banging away on Fallujah will do nothing but kill soldiers. It will not kill the ideology or the plan. Just like our soldiers die in Iraq, so do theirs. And just like our leaders, theirs remain in the background.
Our disagreement comes here. You may believe that staying "this particular course" is wise. I don't! I think we're waisting soldiers lives for the big loud bang, the attraction that keeps Americans excited and involved. It is not a policy for winning, only a policy to keep going at the expense of our children. Will your be old enough (as per Rumsfeld) to enter Iraq 12 years from now. Mine will!
If you were "the insurgency" would you put all your eggs in Iraq? And what about the original target. Shouldn't we have """stuck with the plan""" to get Osama first since HE was the one who struck America?
I appreciate the opportunity for debate. Thank You!
Alan
Doc,
Yes, regarding history's verdict on the appropriateness of President Bush's toughness on terrorism, our disagreement does seem to be over the wisdom of staying the course in Iraq. I think it was appropriate to enter Iraq. Regardless of one's position on initiation of the engagement, I fail to see how leaving Iraq at this point could be seriously considered. Iraq's trajectory is clearly upward -- horrible dictator toppled, democratic elections held, free economy developing, and a constitution on the horizon. These are major accomplishments in a profoundly troubled corner of the globe. Leaving now would jeopardize these gains and guarantee that the situation devolves toward chaos.
Perhaps you are concluding that our prospects in Iraq are bleak and that we should cut our losses now. I don't come close to that position. It is tough and will be tough, but we're winning this thing.
I, too, appreciate the dialogue. Thank you.
Thanks for the response. My concerns are many-fold, but do not suggest a cut-and-run approach. Those words are typical republican propoganda used to denigrate anyone who suggests that a different tactic be used. Nixon did a cut-and run approach. Reagan might have, but he got Ollie North to take the hit. Clinton probably should have, but a stain is a stain!! As stated previously, a change in tactic might be in order.
as stated before:
1. Who do you believe re Iraq: the Pres., Rummy, Cheney, or the Generals?
2. Does bombing Fallujah really do anything to the leaders of Al-Qaeda who plan behind the scenes?
3. Might a sudden surge against Osama be quite the surprise and catch him off-guard?
4. Does the question of whether getting into Iraq legally, illegally, mistakenly, or with unprecedented lousy intelligence matter to you? (If illegal, should we prosecute?)
5. Was Bush (like Churchill) saving a society from imminent doom, or was his intelligence prior to 9/11 ("Saddam doesn't even have the ability to pose conventional warfare against his neighbors much less against the USA: Powell) correct, and he was more interested in regime change?
6. Who said anything about leaving Iraq?
7. Will Bush go into Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, N. Korea, to spread democracy?
8. This is a loaded question. We first went into Iraq for WMD and USA's imminent threat of "Mushroom Cloud", then to topple a tyrant, next came the link to 9/11, now "a hotbed of terror". Which is it this month?
I don't think our prospects in Iraq are bleak, I think they are disasterous...particularly if we stay the course. As the Al-Qaeda leaders laugh about losing thousands of volunteers from Iraq and surrounding territories, all of whom think that dying for the cause is a stairway to heaven, they know that American's will eventually get fed up. When they do, the House and the Senate will suffer a significant turn-around. As much as you would like to believe that staying the course will work, you and many others will likely be watching from home, and not the Utah House of Rep.
Again, I don't believe that cutting and running is gonna fly. I do believe that a change in tactics is necessary because these tactics demonstrate little regard for the lives of American soldiers. It shows that the administration considers them beef and nothing more. They still, to this day, do not have all the protection they need, i.e., body armor, armored vehicles. The insurgency can outlast any direct attacks. Bush Senior's book stated very clearly the reasons he didn't go into Iraq. Dubya should have read the darn thing. Lets use good old American ingenuity to fight this battle, not just continue to send troops in the face of fighters who follow no rules of combat. I picture a boxer ready to slug it out with an opponent, only to have the opponent kick him right in the groin. The fighter changes his tactics quickly, or becomes an opera star before the night is over! I am not a strategist, but I'm sure there are many good ideas out there that take our soldiers out of harms way, and still get the job done.
Alan
I agree with what doc has said in regards to the Bush administration's foreign policy.
I definitely think a tactics change is in order. Doc, do you have any ideas on how we might change our tactics? I think many republicans, me included, are leery of Bush's foreign policy.
I am on the same page as the president when it comes to overhauling social security or establishing Health Savings Accounts. Heck, I even support almost all of No Child Left Behind (even though this legislation is not popular among Utah republicans).
But when it comes to Bush's foreign policy I feel a little jaded. I sense that many Republicans feel that they need to religiously defend Bush's foreign policy or else they will come across as capitulating weaklings. Unfortunately, the debate over Iraq has become more emotional than objective.
<< Home