Crisis Leadership

CRISES LEADERSHIP UNDER FIRE

It was October 22 1962 at Lackland Air Force Base during my first two weeks of Basic Training; two weeks of total isolation from the outside world. The meal ended and our Technical Instructor (T.I.) assembled us behind the chow hall.

In an unusually soft voice the T.I. informed us the President of the United States had ordered Defense Condition 4. The Russian Soviet Union had been arming Cuba with nuclear missiles aimed at America. Friends he knew and lived with were now aboard aircraft awaiting parachuting into battle; we could well be at war within hours – nuclear war.

He did not say it then, and succeeding generations may be unenlightened at to the events; but October 1962 would prove to be the greatest crises in human history.

Americans get an image in their mind of what the President should be. For my generation this was probably Kennedy. Sometime after that day at Lackland I began collecting observations of what JFK did in the days of great crises. These are some of those observations:

• Accepted the intelligence of known preliminary facts, and immediately put men in harms way by ordering further investigation and planning.
• Made himself aware of every detail of the threats and projected scenarios.
• Told by military leaders 30-million casualties in first salvo would be “acceptable”, he took personal command.
• Knowing he could not know everything, he delegated authority to others and never “upstaged” them.
• When the New York Times got hold of the story before Kennedy was ready to risk panic, the Times publisher took the word of the President and withheld their biggest “scoop” in history.
• Not waiting until the enemy was firmly entrenched, and with personal or political consequences unknown, he acted.
• He avoided panic by not saying everything he knew, but did not succumb to lying.
• Spoke eloquently, factually, and calmly to America; leaving everyone aware who was in command.
• As President JFK accepted personal responsibility for events and people he could not control, and for mistakes of others of whom he had no knowledge.
• Personally ordered that firing of the gun which would be first salvo of World War III to be done solely at his own voice command.
• Refused to leave the field of battle, the White House, until the outcome was known.

John F Kennedy, we children of the 60’s later learned, was a very flawed man. However, during the perilous days of October 1962 he demonstrated to our generation what real crises leadership looks like.

Al Capone - Don

The Man Who Would Be Don

About age ten my big brother and I traveled with our father to some long-gone neighborhood theater showing a movie my father wanted us to see, Little Caesar.  The movie was made in 1931; our viewing would have been about 1953.  Gangster movies were a big deal from the 1920’s until at least the 1950’s.  The inspiration for these films and their popularity came honestly.  All through the 20’s & 30’s newspapers were filled with the real life “exploits” of bad guys like Alphonse Gabriel Capone ("Big Al" -- on whom the movie may or may not be based).

Big Al Capone was by far the best known character of the 1920's Prohibition era.  Big Al controlled what is best described as his “fiefdom” of South Chicago.  He controlled it with a combination of avarice, women, and singing his own praises.  Unlike others in the 'business' Al made himself a flamboyant public figure known throughout Chicago.  He was a popular media celebrity; bigger than life, and was considered “one of us” by “working-stiffs” who saw his defiance of “the man” as the reason he was successful.

As with any lord of any fiefdom, he demanded fidelity and received love from admirers which he was incapable of returning with loyalty.  Truly he was lord and master of all he surveyed, as long as he contained his endeavors to what could be run out of Chicago’s Lexington Hotel.

As with Little Caesar, Big Al Capone was not as big a deal as he thought himself to be.  When all was said and done he was a "Capo", a mob captain who ran a gang if thugs who adored and answered to him.  His fiefdom was limited by mob agreement to south of Michigan Street.  Al was always quietly underwritten by, paid tribute to, and owed his soul to the mob.  Outside Chicago’s south-side was foreign territory, entered at great risk.  Al’s downfall began when his lust for riches and renown overcame his limitations.

Big Al never made it to “Don” status.  Don being rank used in the Mafia for a made-member of the crime Family with major social status and influence in the organization (think Don Corleone of "Godfather" movie).  In fact, it is highly doubtful Al would even have been considered for elevation to mob “Commission” which was (for all we know still is) the highest level of the America Mafia.  The Commission included only the Don heading each of the crime Families.

Big Al would not have been particularly successful on the Commission, anyhow.  Such an accountable position as Don requires high intelligence, attention to detail, lots of reading, and strong sense of history.  Big Al, to be sure, was “street smart” and understood his business, but he would have been easily manipulated by other Dons if he had been suddenly and unexpectedly added to the Commission.

As it often is with Capos and Dons, Big Al was not brought down by his life of public and documented crimes.  Rather, he was toppled from his pedestal by tax cheating, creative bookkeeping, spending and 'borrowing' more than his declared income justified.  Thus be it ever for the man who would be Don.

LEGAL STUFF DISCLAIMER: Any Resemblance to or Inference of any Living Capo who Would be Don is Surely Incidental -- more or less.

An Atheist in WH?

Is This the First True Atheist to Occupy White House?

February 7 2020

The Evangelical may prefer to dismiss the following.  It may be too challenging to typical American doctrine; touching too close to the demand of I Peter 3.15.

Pro-maga folk, with whom I have only passing acquaintance, could have mixed emotions.  They seem to yearn for a leader who breaks them free of the uncomfortable restraints of traditional decorum for the sake of some ill-defined ego-centered philosophy; and might be comfortable with an atheist yielding unlimited power.

To both of these groups, read on -- it really is just a question.



In 1952 both political Parties wanted as candidate for POTUS the most popular war hero in America, General Dwight Eisenhower.  His problem was that he had never been “baptized” into any Protestant denomination.  He joined his wife’s Presbyterian church.  Right or wrong, prior to 2016 no one could hope to be elected to any office in the land if they did not at least exhibit “belief” in God.  Then we somehow got trump.

Yesterday a perfunctory appearance was made by the chief executive at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he was clearly out of his element.  Possibly betraying ignorance of it being Biblical teaching for two millennia, he began by disagreeing with the previous speaker about loving our enemies. 

What followed was, at best, lacking in what was traditionally regarded as civil discourse.  If, as was noted, this was behavior “unbecoming” a gentleman, it might also be described as unbecoming a drunken gentleman.  But, it would be unfamiliar to refer to trump as a gentleman; and, if drunk at all it would have been intoxication from the unimaginable political power invested the previous day by the majority Party of the United States Senate.



An intelligent young self-professed “progressive” asks:  Is this the first true atheist to occupy the White House? 

This is, unfortunately, a perfectly reasonable and logical question to be asked by someone reared in the current generation; a generation which old men must navigate.  Our young progressive puts forth several anecdotal observations any “non-believer” might see as justification for their question:

·        He is demonstrably unfamiliar with church services, hymns, or their traditions and liturgies; and doesn’t seem to know the Bible – once referring to “two” Corinthians

·        He is first to have no church service in White House [Although there is a high-profile TV evangelist as self-proclaimed “spiritual advisor” who, in this old man observation, may not be best representation of Christian belief to put in forefront]

·        Nothing in his publicly known life reflects any Christian ethic, yet he consistently publicly panders to Christians as “his” people

·        People who have known and worked with and for him have variously described him as: “profane” “bully” “habitual liar” “deceitful” “shameless” ‘amoral” “braggart”

·        When asked specifically if he prayed for forgiveness, he said he thought he would if he ever did anything wrong

To this list must be added yesterday’s bewilderment that a wife would love her husband so much she even cried because he was near death.  An observation he’d made other times.

Having spent a lifetime in the Church it should be said many of these observations can be seen in faithful, church-going parishioners.  So, would the reader please come forward who has evidence otherwise, but is this the first true atheist to occupy White House?  To which must be added the vital question for future generations:  Should it still matter?

Known Wolves Like Trump all my life

I’ve Known Wolves Like This All My Life

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,

but inwardly they are ravening wolves.  (Matthew 7.15, KJV)

The last time I saw Harry Bussman was in the 1970’s.  I thanked him for the many fond memories my sister and I had as kids riding the Mississippi on his yacht every summer.  I also thanked him for sending so many roses to our father’s funeral they covered the entire wall behind his coffin.

Mr. Bussman owned the largest trucking company in Missouri and the only Electric Fuse manufacturer.  Was never said what else he was into; really don’t want to know.  He told me (and he’d never lie to son of Phil Lewis) that he made $50,000 a day, every day, after taxes, whether or not he got out of bed (I might add, legally).  I have no idea how much money that would be in 2020.

During the 1950’s I met many “men of means” like Mr. Bussman with whom my father interacted.  He also dealt with the Teamster Union when Jimmie Hoffa really could shut down America; and lunched sometimes with men in oddly loose fitting suits identified to me only as ‘business associates’.  Every Christmas we kids were inundated with small gifts from these associates.  Every two years we got a new-to-us automobile courtesy of Mr. Bussman – the last of which I picked-out new off a showroom floor.

In the course of all this the owner of another trucking business told me confidentially some things he wanted me to know about my father.  To paraphrase words heard over 60 years ago:  “Anything given to Phil Lewis was not to buy him or influence business, because nothing could.   Your father is the only honest man in the trucking business in St. Louis.  He is the only man trusted by the freight owners, the drivers, the Union, and the mob.  If Phil Lewis tells you something, it’s true.”

Over time and various circumstances among the many things my father told me were truths about the Mr. Bussmans and the Union leaders and the ‘associates’ of the world.  It’s been a long time, but this is how I assimilated his warnings:

These men will dine you, and wile you, and pull you under the spell of their charisma.  Such people possess an innate ability to find both what they can get out of you -- and where lay your weaknesses to get it.  Never trust them completely; always get it in writing.  They will talk of loyalty, but demand fidelity.  You will hear the truth only where it serves them.  Assume any morality exhibited is based on self-preservation.  When they discern there is nothing more to gain from you, you will be discarded.

Over my now 76 years I have met and observed a lot of wolves my father warned me about, and have come to know what to expect when I see one.  That is why nothing surprised me when one of those wolves came down an escalator and immediately began to beguile and then discard all he touched.  I’ve known wolves like this all my life.

Defense Rests in Impeachment

The Defense Rests

Wednesday, January 29 2020, 1:00 PM (EST)

Watched as much of the Senate “trial” defense as an old man can.  Mostly watched FOX because they have best update chyrons and I could keep most of the talking stuff on mute.

The basic facts did not appear to be in dispute:  A call was made, for which we have a partial transcript; funds appropriated by Congress were “held”, etc.

The defense offered seemed a bit disjointed.  Someone listed 29 different arguments put forth.  Some of these conflicted with others, and a few were fatuous.  For the most part all the well-worn talking points trump wanted to hear got TV time.

Mercifully, they took about half of their allotted time.  This was at least in part because they had no actual contra-arguments to make.  Some of time used was wasted on chasing down “Red Herrings” and saying some “Straw Man” did worse.

Overall it would have gone more quickly, and been more bearable, if they had stuck to the real legal arguments:  The Articles of Impeachment presented do not reach the level of removal from office.  In this they were most effective.

As this is being written questions of witnesses, evidence, and an actual trial have not been settled.  These questions, as with the final outcome, are purely political in nature. 



My lingering questions and current opinions:

QUESTION:  If true Democrats moved too fast for truth to come out, is it not also true Republicans moving too fast to ‘get over it’?  Oddly, both can be true.

QUESTION: The majority Party is doing everything they can to protect trump; it that supposed to be their job?

QUESTION:  Given known facts and circumstances, and given nature of trump, is this an offence against the Constitution rising to the level of removal from office?  Turns out that is the only question.

OPINION: I remain convinced that lacking secret ballots we, and history, will never know if we got an honest outcome.  Believing they cannot win, how many Democrats see no need to vote their true belief and vote to acquit?  Believing they cannot lose, how many Republicans see no need to vote their true belief and vote to remove?   There will be no secret ballot.

OPINION: As written in my letter to Senator Mike Brawn –

Frankly, my original assumption had been there might be some kind of bi-partisan “censure” motion passed and that would be the end of it.  Unfortunately, trump continues to be his own and the Republican Party’s worst enemy.  Thus, as Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “And here we are”.

I’ll be glad when important things take back the news – things like fires, earthquakes, terrorists, war mongering, torture of immigrants, and good old political in-fighting!

Ltr to my Senators re: Impeach

Letter sent to Senators Young and Braun of Indiana

January 6 2020

Dear Senator,

Our son, a fourth grade teacher, tells us he hears three answers to every issue – your side, my side, and the truth.  My some seventy years observation of politicians has led to presumption that politicians are mostly like fourth graders:  Having chosen their side, they have no interest whatsoever in the other side -- or the truth.  If the reader finds this harsh, all which can be here suggested is that mine is the worldview reaped from the prevarications sown.

As of this date American will soon be asked to endure what will be called a “trial” before a “jury” of duly elected Senators.  No responsible person attempting to follow events of the past three years should assume anything like a fair, honest, truth-seeking event is forthcoming.  It the most basic of terms, America must surely recognize “The Fix Is In”.

As things now stand we cannot expect to get the whole story of the actions and events which have brought us to this moment in history.  As with many who have been or ought to have been Impeached, truth will probably remain unknown until after the passing from the scene of all involved, all who care, all who may benefit from the truth.

As to the immediate events we face, the truth will never be known by ours or any future generation unless:

·        The Supreme Court Chief Justice pro-actively presides over the procedures:  Commanding his court, overruling purely partisan procedures, and disqualifying jurors who have publicly pre-judged the outcome.

·        Relevant fact witnesses are compelled to testify under threat of enforcement by court controlled U.S. Marshall Service.

·        Leaders of the two Parties release the Jurors to vote their conscience and by secret ballot.

To get the truth, to even hope we had been told most of the truth, would require all three of the above conditions.  But, no responsible observer ought to hope this will happen, because we are at the mercy of politicians.  In this observation politicians willingly sacrifice “duty, honor, country” to the corruption of political power.  And we ought not to dare hope for fairness, honesty, truth-seeking, nor certainty.  If the reader finds all this to be harsh, all which can be here suggested is that mine is the worldview reaped from the prevarications sown.

Sincerely,

David L Lewis



Following is my reply to letter received in response from office of Sen. Braun:

January 22, 2020

Dear Senator Braun,

Thank you for your apparently pro-forma letter of January 10, 2020 in response to my earlier correspondence.  As expected, your reply addresses none of the concerns of my letter.  It is probably safe to assume my concerns were unread.  Given you are trapped for a while doing constitutionally required work, there is no reason to believe you will read my reply.  In the tenuous hope some minion might be tasked to read this, I write now for the record.

Although it is irrelative, I would want it known that the first time I voted it was for Senator Barry Goldwater.  As I once told his son, am glad I did and have always been proud of my vote.  Since 1964 I have thought of myself as a Goldwater conservative, and was supportive of the local Republican Party when I had still been able.

Your letter clearly indicates obedience to the current trump party line.  But, we are well beyond whining about a government employee who did what was seen as their duty and passed on to the Inspector General volunteered information.  We are even passed whether Impeachment Articles will be adopted by the House of Representatives.  Such matters I leave the uninformed to argue.

Frankly, my original assumption had been there might be some kind of bi-partisan “censure” motion passed and that would be the end of it.  Unfortunately, trump continues to be his own and the Republican Party’s worst enemy.  Thus, as Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “And here we are”.

What I want now is honesty by both Parties.  I’ve gotten too old to believe it will happen.

What I want now is the full truth about the entire Ukraine conspiracy.  I’ve gotten too old to believe it will be had; certainly not from those subservient to trump, cowering before his tweets.

As I write this letter the second day of the Senate trial is set to begin.  It’s early in the game, but nothing I’ve seen done or said changes my assessment the “fix” is in.  I’ve gotten too old to believe you politicians will have the courage to make all of this a fair and open procedure.

If, as you say, you were elected to support trump, the State of Indiana has itself a devil’s bargain.

Sincerely,

David L Lewis

Prosecution Rests in Impeachment

The Prosecution Rests

Saturday, January 25 2020, 10:00 AM (EST)

The Senate trail of Impeachment has reached its natural turning point.  After three days of presentation of their case the House Managers rested.  Now begins the presentation by White House lawyers.  This seemed like good time to ‘take stock’ of my observations. 

No, I have not bothered to watch every minute.  Mostly I have bounced around the three cable networks, plus PBS.  CNN and MSN provide “running” coverage but their commentary, to be polite, is less than unbiased.  FOX is not continually broadcasting the trial and tends to overdub with standing talking points.  PBS gives the most neutral commentary.  What follows is one feeble attempt at being neutral.

What Are The Agreed Facts?

As of this writing I have not seen either side disagree on the basics issues at hand:

·        A partial transcript was released of July 25 2019 incriminating phone call.  Time stamps indicate a longer time span than required to read partial transcript; one person in on call stated under oath transcript is ‘incomplete’.

·        Immediately following the call financial aid was withheld from Ukraine on direct order by trump in violation of The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and contrary to Staff and Cabinet level advices.

·        There had been an on-going Ukraine conspiracy specifically involving Rudy Giuliani including multiple persons and extending over a year.

·        White House has deliberately and methodically blocked release of all legally subpoenaed documents, material evidence, and witnesses.

·        White House has not publicly indicated possession of or released any exculpatory evidence or witnesses.

What Are Merely Conjectures?

In essence, the various conjectures observed from both sides include:

·        Fault blamed on ‘Process’ caused by following rules written and imposed on Congress by Republican majorities.

·        Fault blamed on ‘Political’ origins and would not exist if political positions were reversed.

·        To experienced, uninvolved former prosecutors actions by White House of concealing evidence, threatening witnesses, etc. all indicate a ‘consciousness of guilt’.

·        Situation motivated by re-election concerns, thereby validating any crime which may be implicated.

·        Situation motivated by “corruptions” concerns (nowhere else expressed), thereby validating any crime which may be implicated.

·        Demand for investigations into Biden(s) goes to motive and is not exculpatory.  If it were exculpatory Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee could subpoena one or both parties.

·        Attacks on ‘Impeachment Managers’ were increased due to lack of factual defense.

What Have I Missed?

Conceding that in the avalanche of the known and unknown much may have been missed; these are my own outstanding issues:

·        No one has argued any of trump’s actions interpreted as ‘unprofessional’ are uncharacteristic of him, and not something he would do.  No one on either side has proposed he is a trustworthy person.

·        Who is following the money?  From 1 to 3 million-dollars is known to have been exchanged; at least $1-million traced directly as being from Russia.  Giuliani, who received $500M retainer, was to be paid $1-2 million annually plus "single digit equity participation" (lawyer-speak for "a piece of the action").  Where in the Ukraine caper does all this money fit?

The Defense may now present its case.