Part IV: Liability 9 “The Toyota affair emphasizes some basic points of management. First, any company, no matter how large and how famous for its merits, can stumble into grave error. Second, damaged pride and nervous fear make it difficult to correct the error in good time. Third, management decisions should normally never be taken
[More…]
Part IV: Liability 9
“The Toyota affair emphasizes some basic points of management. First, any company, no matter how large and how famous for its merits, can stumble into grave error. Second, damaged pride and nervous fear make it difficult to correct the error in good time. Third, management decisions should normally never be taken on the basis of profit forecasts alone.” Edward de Bono & Robert Heller, The Toyota disaster – and what we can learn from it[i]
This is Part IV in a series of reports suggesting that the North Carolina Democratic Party is much like the Toyota Motor Company in that they are both among the great organizational successes in American history, and both are losing market share because of
sloppy standards and corrupt leaders. Parts I, II, and III can be found at www.johndavisconsulting.com.
The 10 premises in the series, all political liabilities, lead to the following conclusion: Many believe that the only way North Carolina Republicans can seize power in 2010 is to raise the political bar closer to that of Democrats. Well, what if Democrats lower their political bar closer to the GOP? Republicans win. And that is what is happening in this state.
The following paragraph is restated from the last report for emphasis: What makes 2010 potentially catastrophic for North Carolina Democrats is that the 10 political liabilities are unfolding at the same time. Any one or several of them would not be politically catastrophic. Many times down through the decades, Democrats have weathered eras of corrupt leaders; they have overcome Republican-friendly years, weak governors, high turnover of incumbents, unpopular presidents, budget problems, economic slumps, anti-establishment voters, third party movements, low turnout, declining party loyalty, high unemployment, unpopular wars and a surge in opposition strength … but not at the same time like we are seeing today.
In Parts I, II and III of the series, I wrote about liabilities including:
#1: A Weak Democratic Governor Will be a Drag on Democratic Candidates
#2: Basnight’s Cash on Hand Down by 30% with a Tougher Hill to Climb
#3: Democrats have all of the Power and Get all of the Blame
#4: A Nation and State of Voters Fearing Financial Collapse Due to Spending
#5: Corrupt Leaders: Toyota the Safety Automaker; Perdue the Ethics Governor
#6: The Issue is the Economy, and Democrats Own the Economy
#7: Regnat Populus! Dissatisfied Voters View “Ins” as Dismissive and Un-American
#8: Enthusiasm + Internet = Turnout; Party Infrastructural Advantage Threatened
Here is number nine:
#9: Protective Wall of Silence Exposed Revealing Power-over-Principle Imperative
Those who make the laws should abide by them. Those who would be leaders should lead by example. These two moral imperatives have been overshadowed in the North Carolina Democratic Party by their #1 moral imperative: Partisan power at all costs.
North Carolina Democrats offer protection for their errant leaders behind a wall of silence. If one among them breaks the law (quid pro quo deals, Cannonsgate, quid pro quo deals, illegal flights, quid pro quo deals, tax evasion, and more quid pro quo deals), or compromises principles and values (Law Enforcement Associates’ no-bid contract, university job plus 88% salary increase for Gov’s wife, a judicial district for your DA buddy who lost his election, using the “N” word in front of your six-year-old child, $27,012 for limo services in France), the first sense of moral obligation for North Carolina Democrats is to keep quiet and bide their time.
Keep Your Mouth Shut Long Enough, and the Problem will Go Away
Toyota handled its problems with defective accelerator pedals on millions of its vehicles the same way North Carolina Democrats have handled their problems with defective leaders: they stonewalled the public. “They did try to hide it — that’s what we accused them of — and they’ve agreed to that,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told the Associated Press, upon announcing the largest fine in department history in April of this year. Toyota put profit over principle. They knew parts were defective and kept it under wraps. If it were not for whistleblowers forcing exposure, people would still be dying in runaway Toyota automobiles.
Democrats know that they can use their unchecked power to muscle everyone with a legislative agenda to be a stone in their protective wall of silence. From lobbyists and governmental agency heads, to members of boards and commissions, education officials … even some news reporters; all are aware that you better protect the leadership at all costs or you don’t get access.
No access means no money, no new buildings, no inside scoop, no road contracts … no nothing.
Continue reading »
“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006 Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance. In his
[More…]
“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”1 — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006
Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.
In his book, The Audacity to Win, President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe writes about Obama’s “significant self-confidence.” What Plouffe calls significant self-confidence is also hubris, excessive pride or arrogance; the trait most responsible for Obama’s failed first year.
The year was 2003. Plouffe was meeting with Obama in Chicago for the first time to talk about his 2004 race for U.S. Senate. He was trying to persuade Obama of the importance of allowing campaign professionals to run the campaign. “You just have to let go and trust,” Plouffe told him. “I understand that intellectually,” said Obama, “but this is my life and career. And I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it.”2
Continue reading »