Each, Every day is an Opportunity to Refresh the Dream

The bells rang.  The speakers spoke.  The celebrities did whatever it is that celebrities do.

The weeklong celebration of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom is now history.  Across the nation hearts are warmer for the opportunity taken to remember struggles past and present; we are a better nation today because of the men and women of the Civil Rights Movement.

It was on the shadow of Lincoln that Martin Luther King Jr. reminded America of promises made and broken.  He asked America to honor its promissory notes.  King asked America to accept its obligations and reform our governance structures and systems.

It was on the Mall that day King asked Americans – all Americans – to work in common cause to revitalize a dream.

King inspired us with a dream of a society devoid of racial desegregation, a dream of collaborative peace and prosperity among all men and women regardless of color and race, and a dream that offered our posterity the promise of self-determination.

The dream echoes through time as a goalpost for our ideals.  Though we have made undeniable progress, we have not realized the dream – yet.

Today, and the todays that follow are unique opportunities that will not, cannot come again.  Each, every person in America has the power to change the course of history if we choose it; all of us are empowered to make at least our neighborhood a little better – a little safer – than it is right now.

Oregon in 2013 is a special place.  It feels far removed from the “sweltering summer of discontent” that King described those five decades ago.  We are not witness to the violence that accompanied the struggle for Civil Rights – violence committed in the name of segregation, separation, and racial purity.

Though we still must suffer organizations built upon sponsorship of hatred, many of these have been marginalized over the past few decades.  White supremacists and homegrown terrorists are now operating in the shadows rather than in the open.  Some hope to transform the debate over immigration reform into a racial schism for partisan and personal gain.  But this may well be self-defeating as the faith community now struggles to push back the heat of hate with the light of charity and love.

In modern America we have become better at recognizing bigotry and racism; we have become less tolerant of those unable to participate in a multicultural society.  We have our collection of idiots and opportunists, but we have embraced the vision of King’s Dream.  And we are stronger because of our evolving sense of community.

In communities throughout Oregon we can celebrate a greater sense of inclusiveness.  It is rare in public schools these days to find classrooms without diversity of some culture, ethnicity, or heritage.  We are becoming more diverse and few institutions demonstrate this more clearly than our public schools and colleges.

However, even as the racial divide appears to be decreasing the divide between socioeconomic groups has accelerated exponentially.  Make no mistake about it, there remain two separate States of Oregon – the place where invested fortune perpetuates wealth, and the place where opportunity is determined by access to failing schools, stagnant wages, and a general lack of security.

There is no question that racial challenges continue still.  But the central issue of our time, the struggle for equality for our generation, is the socioeconomic dynamics of remaking the dream possible.

Before his assassination Dr. King transformed his approach to social change.  Though keenly aware of racial bias and the ugliness of Jim Crow, King became focused upon the dynamics of poverty and the value of targeting the power of nonviolent action on transforming the socioeconomics of all in poverty: whatever color, gender, or orientation.

Though we forget the point, work – and the associative values that come with it – is a family value.  When people have employment people have empowerment.  The great tragedy of Vietnam is not just the loss of life involved in a war too few Americans understood; the great tragedy of Vietnam is that it robbed us of the possibilities of the “Great Society.”

And yet, that loss is not an excuse for our inaction today.  Here in Oregon we still have the capabilities for meaningful, purposeful change.  We have a history of innovation and progressive governance: it is time we reenergized our communities with what King termed, “the fierce urgency of now.”

Right now, Oregon is failing our communities of color.  We are also failing our children.  We are failing our environment.  We are failing ourselves: we are better than this.

Since 1990 we have shifted the burden of public higher education from the state to the student.  In our efforts to bolster and secure K-12 education, we have failed to develop responsible governance mechanisms as well as stable funding streams.

Governor Kitzhaber has begun implementing a strategy for P-20 in Oregon.  This “Pre-Kindergarten” through college completion approach is an important evolution in our concepts of education, training, and workforce preparation.

This approach has the authority and funding for an honest experiment.  And whatever the eventual outcome, it represents a rational, reasoned agenda for improvement.  But it will likely fall victim to the fate of so many good ideas (ref: Quality Education Model) absent public buy-in and sustained resourcing.

Governor Kitzhaber has continued work on implementing major aspects of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  When implemented this web of services and systems may well provide Oregon with access to the greatest worker empowerment benefit, ever.

The portability of quality care is an accelerator for industry, innovation, and security for men and women dependent upon the stagnated wages associated with this new era of globalism.

And Governor Kitzhaber, with the help of leaders from both parties, is struggling with development of a sustainable retirement structure for public workers.  He led the effort for reforms earlier this year, there is evidence suggesting he may call a Special Session to reform the reforms.

Whatever we may think of certain and/or specific facets of the proposals so far made public (on PERS), few can dispute the importance of an open discussion about the meaning of retirement, the long-term sustainability of traditional governance, and our shared understanding of public services.

While nobody knows what may have been had King lived a full life, we believe that had he lived he would have helped facilitate a national collaboration on the rightful role of government in lifting people from poverty.

We believe King would have advocated for affordable, excellent, public schools.

We believe King would have advocated for affordable, portable, quality health care.

We believe King would have advocated for clean air, land, and waters.

We believe King would have advocated for fair wages and secure retirement for all Americans: for the factory workers as well as the CEOs (now earning nearly 400 times the wages of the average factory employee).

And we believe King would have advocated for a revised understanding of our shared agenda for progress.  King dreamed of an America where race mattered little; he died in the struggle for empowerment for all – not just the African-American community.

King understood that regardless of color, culture, ethnicity, gender, and race – poverty was the greatest barrier to all Americans seeking to realize our shared American Dreams.

The greatest tribute we can pay, the most important thing we can do today in honor of the sacrifice and suffering of King and all those that marched with him is to rekindle the flame of nonviolent action and re-engage the levers of power for progress.

Fifty years have passed.  Much has been accomplished, there are undeniable achievements that have made our world better, stronger than the day King inspired us.  However, much more remains undone.

We may not be able to turn the course of our country, at least right now, but we can – and must – turn the course of our Oregon.

We must engage our government and the governed; we must fight for the tools that can facilitate men and women maximizing their potentials through work.  We must empower those seeking a chance at fulfilling their dream.

And we must gather together from time to time and celebrate the heroics of works past and present – so that we may inspire works future.

 

Appropriateness in Foreign Policy is a Virtue, Really…

Images from Egypt stir our passions.  Americans want others to enjoy the safety, security, and structures inherent to our Republic – even as we promote the systems required for our own security, the security of our allies, and the security of our cooperative interests abroad.

Achieving these things is not impossible but it is very, very difficult – under the best of circumstances, very nearly impossible under the worst.

Like it or not, we are committed to the realities throughout the Middle East.  As the people of the region struggle with the challenges of globalism, modernity, and technology we must remain engaged, principled, and resolute.

Egypt, Israel and Jordan are our strongest allies: we owe these nations far more than diplomatic, economic, and military support.  Each of these nations have stood with us at times that few others would even consider doing so.

Libya may emerge as an ally but too much remains to be settled as factions determine the means for sustainable progress.

Among the region we spend considerable talent, time, and treasure on maintaining relationships with Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Yemen.  These and other nation-states share mutual interests and we will likely continue to work cooperatively as long as we share those interests.

That said, we must be aware that the world as we know – the world as we helped shape it – is in transition.  And the day of PAX AMERICA is over, if ever it really existed.

Neither President Obama nor the panoply of would-be Republican successors now arguing for more aggressive actions in Egypt (and other places) has the ability to control the outcome of crisis within a country, much less a region.

Nor should they.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq proved our limitations in determining the course of other nations if nothing else; we learned we cannot command nor control political outcomes within a region with little practice in democracy – in an environment where sectarian issues still reign supreme.

Most importantly, even if we could determine the course for another nation, we should be wise enough to recognize the futility in doing so.  Our experiences throughout the Middle East are a legacy of supporting interests too often at the expense of the people.

I applaud President Obama’s self-discipline.

In the USA it is easier to make a big speech and send troops to promote our ideals: it is much more difficult – and important – to demonstrate our ideals (especially respect for self-determination) through communicating our hopes and supporting actions that reflect our values.

Our biggest mistake in recent decades has been our inability to be honest with ourselves about our most appropriate role in foreign policy.

We confused our global reach with global command.  The US remains the greatest force for good on the planet – when we keep our priorities straight, our egos in check.

We have immense capacity to do good.  We can facilitate democratic ideals, even foster an environment within which a Republic can grow, but we cannot (and must not try) to force the establishment of a democracy upon our terms, or within our time-frames.

We must always emphasize the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – even as we remain flexible in how other people’s determine those values for themselves.

In Egypt the military is understood (by the largest segment of the population) as a stabilizing force.  Moreover, absent a more legitimate alternative, the military is the best potential partner for sustained reform.

Sadly, events of the past week have called a lot of that legitimacy into question: over 600 dead, 4,000 wounded as a result of demonstrations that turned terribly wrong.

The President was right to cancel the scheduled military exercises: it is an appropriate step to demonstrate US frustration with the deaths associated with the recent “crack-downs.”  There is no excuse for massacring peaceful demonstrators.

However, we also know there is far more going on than what is being shown on the media: Egypt is embroiled in tensions bordering on civil war.  Pulling foreign aid at this point would destabilize the most stable structure in a society on the precipice of chaos.

We must continue to emphasize our expectations of peaceful resolutions for political crisis.  We must continue to balance the needs for near-term and far-term achievement: a free Egypt as a contributing member of the community of nations – a result of a self-determined process of reform.

For many years we emphasized the value of our power.  It is time for us to recognize the value of our ideals.  Taken together we can strengthen our position throughout the world: we must always answer our enemies with force, but we must not always find enemies where there may be none.

The most effective role we can play regarding Egypt is the role we have been playing.  We must be honest but patient; we must be gentle in our reproaches and willing partners in cooperative reform that reflects sincerity of democratic efforts.

In the end, we may find the Egyptian military nothing less or more than another structure bent on totalitarianism.  But we are not there yet.  Thus far the military has tried to bring order to chaos and support the general will of the people.

Let us see what happens in the next few months before we pull our aid and kick the legs out from underneath the transitional government.  This is a difficult time and we must not allow ourselves to be led astray by “bumpersticker diplomacy.”

Contrary to Bush and his Vulcans – the world is far more complex, far more difficult to control than imagined.  So much so that the only way to succeed is to never try.

We must stand for our ideals.  We must stand with our friends when they demonstrate them, and be honest when they fall short.  And we must remember that our best role within the world is that of friend and helper – not decider of all.

Once upon a time politics stopped at the water’s edge: we may never be able to return to that sense of unity on matters of foreign policy, but we can – and must – recognize that during times such as these cautious, rational, and well-reasoned measures are better than knee-jerk reactions.

Chicken-hawks, Clowns, Corporatia and Curmudgeons… A Big Tent Strategy for 2016

For a generation of Americans the movie “Billy Madison” registers a particularly salient humorous tone.

Adam Sandler plays the role of a wealthy kid forced to confront his own wasted youth: he is compelled to complete his high school studies in an accelerated race against time.  The plot is less powerful than a specific scene during his academic gauntlet.

After answering a question about the Industrial Revolution (and comparing America to a puppy), Madison is rebuked by the moderator.  He is rebuked not merely for the answer itself, but for the more heinous crime of making the audience dumber as a result of hearing the answer.

It is a line I have used myself in the classroom many times since: contrary to popular conceptions there really are a few dumb questions – a few more – dumb answers.

That said, I referenced this scene from the movie because after the past month of listening to the arguments offered by the folks who are supposedly the “front-runners” for the 2016 Republican Nomination for President – I feel dumber as a result.

A recent gathering in Iowa may have actually set a new low in this regard… The comparisons between President Obama and Fidel Castro offered by Texas pastor Rafael Cruz might have been offensive if not uttered with such ham-handedness.

For all of us familiar with the fallacious and poorly crafted attacks upon President Obama (and America – at least the America that twice elected Obama to office) offered by the senior Cruz, it is now all too obvious why “Tail-gunner Ted” Cruz turned out the way he did.

Sadly, hate born from ignorance, self-delusion, and small-mindedness can be a family value.  It is an awful thing for so few to hate so many for so long.

We should recognize that the few believe – truly so – they are right (regardless of fact, logic, or reason).  Iowa was full of “big tent” rhetoric.  The assembled men and women earnestly accept as a matter of faith the relative popularity of their perspectives among “real” Americans.

Like it or not, we must accept their claim: the national GOP is a “big tent.”  And it has been for quite some time.

The umbrella of “Bush-Cheney-Romney Republicanism” extends over a undeniable diversity of culture, region and life experiences: the country clubs in Texas and Wyoming really are quite different than the yacht clubs in New England.

We all know the national GOP has long welcomed chicken-hawks, corporatia, and more than a few curmudgeons.  For clarity sake, I offer the following working definitions:

1. Chicken-hawk: a term used to describe outspoken advocates for the use of military force in support of political objectives; men and/or women that are willing to risk the lives of American troops so long as that risk never includes themselves (these are people too busy to serve in uniform when they were young enough to serve);
2. Corporatia: a term used to describe outspoken advocates of (or assimilated members of) corporate empowerment, rights, and welfare; men and/or women that are willing to use any means necessary to defend the interests of the vested interests; and
3. Curmudgeons: a term used to describe outspoken advocates for a return to the way America never was; men and/or women that are willing to use myth, ritual, and symbol in support policies that fit a particular worldview (often regardless of the efficacy of such advocacy)

This rag-tag amalgamation provided the GOP with a powerful blend of certainty often undeterred by circumstance, facts, or reality.  It was a winning combination because neither rationality nor responsibility mattered.

People were encouraged to feel more, think less, and leaders were rewarded absent demonstrable achievement.  George W. Bush openly (and often) stated that he made decisions from his “gut” and reveled in the role of “decider-in-chief.”

His Vice, Cheney, was always more than willing to free Americans from the burdens of knowing right from wrong: like his mentor “Tricky Dick” – he demonstrated that if the Executive Branch orders something to be done it cannot be illegal (at least the kind of illegal that sends someone to prison).

And his would-be successors McCain and Romney valued the right of wealth and matters of privacy (at least when it came to privacy about their wealth).

For a long time, the national GOP was a coherent, focused, and viable organization for achieving national, state, and local electoral victories.

Unfortunately for the GOP a new faction showed up in 2010 to answer the call of obstructionism trumpeted by McConnell and his allies: the Tea Party raised an army and sent their troops to besiege the Capital City – to save it (from itself).

Now seasoned and prepared to take the revolution to the next level, a new generation of leaders is warming up for the 2016 race.

Enter the clowns.

Cruz, Palin, Paul, Rubio and the rest are too young to have dodged the draft (like their mentors), too anti-establishment to be trusted by the corporatia, and too shiny and sexy to be favored by the aging curmudgeons (who aren’t yet ready to depart the national stage).

It is telling that few of the heavyweights from previous GOP Nomination fights are publicly celebrating the Tea Party or its demonstrable power in Congress.

The clowns present the national GOP with a dilemma: while too popular to ignore, they are too dangerous to be allowed to succeed.

Not content with merely threatening brinksmanship on budget negotiations and debt reductions, these people believe they will benefit from driving the ship to ground.

At the circus, clowns provide a distraction from the frenzy of activities inside the rings: these are folks that are willing to go to extraordinary, often humiliating lengths to earn the applause of an entertained audience for its own sake.

There is a fine line between satire and slapstick: satire requires intelligence, slapstick requires little more than a willing audience for laughing at the unfortunate circumstances of another.

It wasn’t always this way; less than a generation ago it was very different.

Once upon a time, Oregon was the land of Republicans like Atiyeh, Hatfield, McCall, Paulus, Schoon, and Smith (Bob).

Say what you might about the policies of all or any of these Republicans. These people were dedicated public servants that led through the force of their ideas – they were servants of the public trust.

An honest survey of Oregon Politics in 2013 would account for at least a few remaining moderates.  These moderates are like salmon: hard to count, harder still to find – at least in elected office.

The “purification primaries” of the 1990s and 2000s replaced pragmatism with partisanship as the principle value.  It was a tragedy for our state; it was an even larger tragedy for our nation.  The intraparty fratricide has left our nation weakened, our future less certain.

Would anyone claim Cruz, Palin, Paul, or Rubio are dedicated stewards of our national interests? Could anyone make that claim with a straight face?

Even the 2008 GOP Nominee is reported to be more favorable to Hillary Clinton as President then Cruz, Paul, or Rubio – and maybe Palin – the former Alaska Governor he picked for VP…

Something somewhere is weird in our universe when Bob Dole advises the Republicans in Congress to put a “Closed for Repairs” sign on the doors of Congress.

Outside the Beltway there are many hard working Republican leaders.  There may even be a few left in D.C.  But the GOP is hostage to a minority of a minority of its membership; it is constrained by its own successes.

It is critical that partisans contest elections vigorously.  It is equally critical, if not more so, that we come together for the nation’s interests after the battle.

We must honor the view of the minority without sacrificing the rights of governance for the majority: it is critical that we accept majority rule within the US Congress again.

There is a role within a vibrant democratic Republic for at least two healthy factions.  We are stronger when we are compelled to defend our notions of governance through a fair, public, and reasonable process of deliberation and decision-making.

Sadly, we are witness to a national GOP that has internal drivers for pushing itself over the cliff.  It isn’t that the real leaders within the party are unable to see the catastrophe unfolding – it is that they have built a network of forces that cannot help but conspire to push well past the limits of rationality.

There is an enduring but false myth in American Politics: the saying that Democrats lead with their hearts and Republicans lead with their heads is demonstrably untrue.

Ironically, the exact opposite is much closer to truth.

The modern Republican Party is largely comprised of believers: believers with spillover between the sacred and secular – believers who favor certainty and strength over demonstrable accuracy or consistency.

The modern Democratic Party is largely comprised of thinkers: people who are often guilty of fragmentation in pursuit of perfection (at the expense of the good enough) – thinkers who favor process and rationality over emotionalism or pyrrhic crusades.

This August (for a few weeks more) we have the opportunity to visit with our Congressional Delegation during the recess.

There will be forums, sidewalk office hours, and town hall meetings across the State of Oregon.  These events are part show and substance, but each provides an opportunity for citizens to advance ideas directly to our elected ambassadors to D.C.

It is time for all of us – whatever our party or preference – to speak with a singular voice and demand a functional Congress.  It is time for all of us to accept the values and virtues of a competitive political system – even as we demand a functional political system.

Although we have a lot of time before the nation must choose our next President we must be wary of allowing the clowns too much opportunity to shape the landscape of that contest.

We must demand a competitive race between men and women of vision – people with the experience, skills, and talent to bring a nation closer together – leaders with an ability to govern in a manner that fosters national consensus instead of protracted disrespect and greater disunion.

With respect to whoever said “send in the clowns,” it is time we escort them back to their car and wave goodbye.

America cannot realize its promise unless we find a way to renew our sense of citizenship, community, and cooperation.

America cannot reach for the stars as long as Cruz, Palin, Paul, and Rubio are viewed as anything more than jesters for the court.

Stewardship of Our Public Trust

The clouds overshadowing our political landscape warrant our concern.  Many of us wonder what the Founders might say about our choices, the shaping our the landscape,  and its impact upon our moral obligations to ourselves and our posterity.

Though some could argue the point, the “76-ers” would probably be less surprised than frustrated.  After all, the Founders built a government upon open-eyed appreciation of the constructive and destructive power of the human experience.

While the Declaration of Independence rallied us to the cause of universal life, liberty, and pursuits of happiness we must recall that the US Constitution (and the failed attempts before it), enshrined “checks and balances” in order to forestall the dangers of tyranny.  And in so doing, the Founders simultaneously enshrined our perpetual struggle with trust in government and the agents thereof.

What began as mere distrust among the factions has morphed into a dark, hostile extremism against all things collaborative, cooperative, and constructive.  Modernity has provided all people with instant global reach to the Zeitgeist of an emerging age.  And the weight of the very few is a constant drag upon the few, the many, and the one.

For good or ill, we live in a nation where close to a third of our citizens cannot find a positive attribute about our President; a time when at least an eighth of our citizens believe a twice elected Commander-in-Chief as “illegitimate” regardless of the facts associated with his citizenship, faith, and proven commitment to our America.

We live in a nation where the senior ranking Republican in the US Senate believes it necessary (and proper) to wage total war upon the President’s agenda because he understands the political power of his party can accept failure easier than retreat.

And we live in a nation where facts are no longer tied to demonstrable evidence: a period of time with emerging technology driven propaganda networks that fit “facts” to ideas.  In this era, we seek not to learn but to reinforce our previously determined perspectives of a particular kind of reality.

Perpetual campaigns have replaced most real attempts at governing; we have replaced the notion of leadership defined through setting out a vision in order to facilitate advancement through the labyrinth of change with contentment with the appearance of leadership.

The irony is that we have more channels for meaningful communication than at any time in human history, and fewer things of value being communicated through those channels – at least in terms of political value.

Thoughtful people claim this is the harshest political climate in our history.

With respect, people focusing upon the coarseness of our language or the hostility of the respective factions toward another are either ignorant of our history, or ignorant of the larger – darker – truth.

There have been few canings in the US House or US Senate recently.  We haven’t suffered a political assassination of an elected official in several decades.  And we are not, at least in concrete terms, anywhere close to a “civil war” between the factions or the several states.

That said, we are now at the rational, some might say inevitable, dilemma equilibrium.  Our structures and systems – the bureaucracy built to implement the laws passed to establish a More Perfect Union – are now firmly entrenched.

Strong bureaucracies are an essential part of human progress, when and only when, the Republic functions as a conductor for the efficient trains built to serve the public.  Absent a strong conductor the policy trains run amok.

Our nation is in many ways held in equilibrium through dilemma: forced choices with a bias toward catastrophe now govern the matrix of public policy decision-making.

Put another way, we act only when not acting will deliver swift and certain destruction – for the interests defended by the respective decision-makers.

Our politics no longer plays to our notions of the possible or even the plausible.  Our politics is increasingly hardwired into the notions of intractable, permanent inaction excepting instances of self-survival.

This political malaise has spread throughout our nation, states, and communities.  We have become familiar with crisis; we are content with a culture that views political power as the demonstrable ability to prevent rather than the ability to advance.

Here in Oregon we are not immune.

Though many good-hearted souls labor intensively for visionary outcomes in education, employment, health care, housing, and transportation, we all too often remain firmly entrenched in the politics of dilemma equilibrium.

This is how and why the case of Rudy Crew cuts to the quick: he was given the opportunities, position, and power to craft a legitimate change agenda for our children and he opted instead to serve his own interests and then walk away.

Oregon must not turn back.  Not just on education, but on employment, health care, housing, transportation, veterans issues, and all the others that impact our present and future well-being, we must continue the march forward.

For too long we have struggled to prepare our people for the 21^st Century because of a dependence upon 20^th Century tools: we must recast our understanding of government from deliverer of certain and specific services into a partner with the flexibility to support and sustain human enterprise, innovation, and vision.

We must find new tools to guarantee opportunity for each, every Oregonian.

We must find new tools to secure a safe environment for each, every Oregonian.

We must find new tools to protect the basic rights of each, every Oregon to think, act, and to live without fear.

And we must find new tools to promote the future even as we provide in the present.

It is time we reorient our thinking about governance structures and systems: Americans now expect to have at least 5-7 different careers over the course of a professional life – changing jobs is now far more common than not changing jobs.  Why do we expect our public manifestations to be more stable than our private manifestations?

Rather than seeking to enshrine the perfect, we must strive towards empowerment of our public officers to secure the necessary with an understanding that “tweaking” is a legitimate end of our new understanding of governance.

There is no perfect plan: there is no perfect agenda – but there are good ideas, good policies, and good outcomes.

And there are good stewards: we must demand stewardship and reward it when we find it demonstrated.

Let us consider the case of Rudy Crew in context and remain courageous in the cause of change.  Let us reflect upon the Oregon we seek rather than dwell upon the Oregon we know.  Together we can change our world if we continue to have the will to do so.

A Speech that Changed America

Two score and ten years ago this month Martin Luther King Jr. and his colleagues led a “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.”

It was a hot and sultry day full of promise: it was a day that has been often imitated but never equaled.

King came to Washington to petition for cause; he brought his movement to the federal Capitol in the hopes of inspiring action – in the hopes of compelling our American conscience to confront the human consequences of Jim Crow and choose to become better, stronger as a nation and people.

In the five decades since the March on Washington our nation has both changed the world and been changed by it.  Consider all that has happened since:

1. the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and Martin Luther King Jr.;
2. the Vietnam War;
3. Watergate and Nixon’s resignation;
4. a race to the Moon and back – and a permanent International Space Station;
5. the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Air Act;
6. Reaganomics – and the transformation of the US from the greatest creditor nation on the planet into the greatest debtor nation in history;
7. two US wars in the Persian Gulf – and one in Afghanistan;
8. the collapse of the Soviet Union;
9. the rise of China; and
10. globalization on a scale that has forever shifted the markets – an emerging reality that has can either enslave or equalize people – a set of economic forces that we have yet to manage effectively, or for that matter even fully understand.

In the time since that historic August afternoon, we have twice elected Barack Obama, made significant strides towards equality in gender and sexual orientation, kept the world from nuclear annihilation, and facilitated a historic transformation of our human experience through globally available technologies that were once nothing more than vague notions found in science fiction movies.

We have achieved much.  But we have much left to do.  Sometimes it seems that for every two steps taken forward we are pushed back a step.  Over time we have made steady progress but it has not – and will not – come easy.

Not long ago the US Supreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act, sustained the power of corporations through soft money campaign expenditures, and stood witness as the nation’s airwaves, lands, seas – and yes, even elements of our human genome – have become subject to increasing private controls.

We live in a different America than King knew in 1963.  Cultural, ethnic, and racial changes have transformed the face of our America.  In many ways our demographics have recast our structures and systems.  It is critical that we remember how the hard work of the 1960s and 1970s peeled away the barriers to employment, interracial marriage, and property ownership that allowed our more equal society.

And yet, even as we celebrate the advancement made, we know that some Americans remain in isolation and poverty.  The past fifty years have seen pushback on policies that could have made a tremendous difference in the poorest regions of America.

Unfortunately, our politics have become increasingly vicious.  Today the most extreme elements of our society have become radicalized.  In our times corporate wealth has been combined with misdirected rage to limit the helping hand of reasoned, responsible governance.

Elections have become contests between those that favor a “partner” government and those that view all government to be evil by origin.  Many people are now incapable of understanding the schism for what it is: a manufactured contest to keep us divided and unequal.

Irony abounds as the party of Lincoln has morphed into the Tea Party: a nexus of division, diversion, and intolerance.

This August, we celebrate an America that is more tolerant of differences in culture, ethnicity, race, and religion than any nation in history.  Warts and all, we still attempt things few other nations would dare to try.

And yet, we are still short – far short – of the kind of America we can become.

The message of a shared vision – a collaboratively secured and sustained “American Dream” for every American – has never been more critical to the general welfare of our nation, state, and communities.

Like many speech teachers, I require students to read and then watch King’s address.  It is always interesting to listen to the comments of young men and women that have heard of the speech but were previously unfamiliar with the language and delivery.

Most people have heard of King’s speech.  Some are familiar with the text, and a few have watched at least parts of his delivery.

The vast majority of Americans believe King’s speech was a brilliantly written appeal to what Lincoln referred to as our “better angels.”  People know the dream metaphor as an inspirational call to arms for interracial justice.

While King certainly appealed to our better angels in his call for justice, the speech was far more than an aspirational statement.

It was a declaration of intent: a 20th Century justification for revolution.  King modeled his message upon the appeals proven so powerful in Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

King was more, far more, than a charismatic well-spoken Southern preacher.  He was an intellectual genius that recognized the power of fusing non-violent action in the emerging age of television.

The March on Washington was the background staging for King to petition the Congress, White House, and the nation – through the media – with a demonstration of reasoning as well as the optics of an invading citizen-army.

King knew he could not win desegregation in the South without the involvement of Americans from all regions; he needed a way to touch the conscience and sensibilities of all Americans.

Standing the shadow of Lincoln, King called out the US for failing to honor its promissory note of freedom so long ago promised.

This swipe at our sense of propriety was effective; it went to the heart of the everyday American experience.

His description of the “fierce urgency” of immediate and sustained action as the best facilitator for advancement of freedom within America was a not so subtle ultimatum for the power elite.

Rather than scaring America with a vision of armed revolution King opted instead for a vision of collaboration, cooperation, and coordination.  He offered a future that saw strength in diversity.

It was not by accident that King chose the dream analogy as his extended metaphor.

Dreams are powerful concepts.  Dreams offer people opportunities for exploration of alternative realities without the constraints assigned to existing norms.

King understood that dreams had long provided utility in conveying potential realities in sacred as well as secular texts.  He recognized the organizing value of myth and its relationship to the promise found through reinvention.

From the Jeremiad through Manifest Destiny, from the myths surrounding the Founders through FDRs “Four Freedoms,” Americans had long associated progress with achievement of our individual and collective dreams.

King knew Americans value the restorative narrative of an evolving American Dream.

King outlined his dream in terms consistent with sacred and secular beliefs of the time.  It was a unifying dream of a renewed America: an inclusive, multicultural landscape aligned with our ideals, nationalistic heritage, and shared sense of ordered Creation.

King shared a dream that fit with the American conscience: a notion of a place and time where people are equal, safe, and united.

Each, every parent understood his call for a time when his children (like all children) would be judged by the “content of their character” rather than their skin color.

And King chose to end his address with an appeal to the sense of national purpose the Greatest Generation had answered before, during, and after World War II.  His repetition of the ringing bells across the lands was a stirring call to action for something larger – something greater – than an individual.

Few speeches in the history of our nation, especially by a citizen-at-large, have done more to advance the ideals of our Republic.

Once upon a time citizens believed they could change the course of our nation – change the hearts and minds of the powerful – and realize a new America in their lifetime.

We still can, when we want change badly enough to fight for it.

Take a few minutes this August and review King’s speech.  Consider its relevancy in our own times.

King was a visionary, an heir to Jefferson, Lincoln, and the men and women that provided us with the foundations for a More Perfect Union.

That day in August, 1963 a man and a movement seized a moment with a message that inspired a generation and facilitated an era of redefining Civil Rights in America.

What will we do with our moment?

The Cautionary Tale of Rudy Crew

Not long ago Rudy Crew abandoned his post as the State of Oregon’s Chief Education Officer.  He left Oregon to become a college president.  Crew is now effectively AWOL (absent without leave) from the revolution he was supposed to lead.

While few people could, would, or even should, fault another for seeking positions that advance a career (with increased compensation and/or prestige) Crew left Oregon after less than a year on the job.

During his brief tenure Crew earned over $230,000 (nearly the amount former elected superintendents of public instruction earned per four year term of office).

Crew was known to push hard on school leaders that balked at his vision of expecting higher achievement absent sufficient resources.  He admonished educators that described the challenges of expecting “more” with “less.”

After telling people they needed to reorient thinking – to stop complaining and start achieving – he promptly left the state for a more glamorous gig in New York.

Crew’s audacity is something for the history books.

Over the past several weeks, stories have emerged describing potential abuses during his tenure.  Reports have focused upon his generous compensation package, elitism, excessive travel, and frequent absences from state business.

Some of these revelations have been shocking to be sure.

And there will undoubtedly be even more stories in the coming months about the opportunity costs of hiring Crew: the costs associated with the ongoing restructuring of the K-16 educational enterprise may well emerge as a 2014 campaign issue.

In a few months, after the fuss and fury subsides, the end result will be squandered potential, weakened alliances, and increased distrust among a public already frustrated with the pace of change.  Ironically, all of that energy could have been tremendously helpful for the restructuring that Crew was hired to orchestrate.

Whatever else may be said about Crew’s brilliance, charisma, or skills he demonstrated open contempt for Oregon.  His unanticipated, undignified, and ultimately unjustified early departure was an act of dishonor, an act I hope his new employers take notice of. In recent weeks most of the reports have focused upon “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Questions have focused upon the rationale for hiring Crew, oversight of his performance, and the staff that supported him.

This week, Governor Kitzhaber explained to the Editorial Board of the Salem Statesman-Journal that hiring Crew was a calculated risk.  The Governor stood up for the folks that recommended his hiring.  I accept his logic: you have to support your subordinates, you have to support the unit you put into the field.

At this point there is very little gained spending time questioning the utility of what Crew might have done had he stayed.  We cannot know what will not happen.

In government, as in war, there are times when a potential objective is worth the risk.  Our children deserve the best education, training, and workforce preparation regime we can establish: Crew was cast as the stand-up leader we needed.

Sometimes a town needs a “Shane” to do the hard things the peaceful townsfolk are unable, or unwilling, to do.  Sometimes the townsfolk are better off without the help.  In time there will be lessons learned from this most recent experience.

Good government experiments: it recognizes failure early, it rewards successes often, and it assesses honestly, openly, and continuously.  And over the past three years, the State of Oregon has implemented a plethora of reinvention initiatives.  We learn through reaching beyond our grasp.

Here’s the salient point: in a republic it is critical that we trust the folks we empower.  If we do not trust our leaders, we should replace them.  Our leaders did the best they could with the information available.

We should not be angry or frustrated with the team that brought Rudy Crew to Oregon.

Crew was brought here for a rational, reasoned purpose.  It is clear the potential benefits associated with his leadership were believed to overshadow the doubts.

Governor Kitzhaber, the Oregon Legislature, and school leaders across the State of Oregon gave Rudy Crew an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that he promptly squandered for the promise of a more interesting career opportunity.

Crew was tapped to restructure the education enterprise within the State of Oregon.  He was provided the talent, tools, and treasure for implementing a new vision.  Crew was allotted expanded authorities, funding, and a larger staff.  Most importantly, Crew was given our trust.

And then he left town.

Rudy Crew was tapped to lead and he abandoned his post: Crew bears the responsibility for his own dereliction of duty.

Truth in advertising: I did not agree with replacing an elected superintendent of public instruction with an appointed careerist.  I do not agree with it now.  However, as a past school board member and current classroom instructor, I believe in education.  We must move reform forward in the near-term.

The new approach may or may not yield the aspirational targets established by the Governor and the Legislature, but there can be little dispute that it would have had a far better chance of succeeding with a leader willing to accept the responsibilities associated with structural and systemic change.

And we will never really know the full extent of what could have been – had Rudy Crew been a principled man that fulfilled his charge.

Despite his departure, Rudy Crew should not, must not be forgotten.  He is an example for all of us.

It is our duty to make sure the men and women empowered on our behalf are held to account when they fall short of expectations; it is our job as citizens to help our public officers serve the interests of the public.

It is a cautionary tale.  We must identify the direct and indirect costs of empowering leaders that prove themselves incapable of keeping faith with the public trust.

There should be no place in our government – in appointed or elected office – for people that believe themselves to be “above the law.”  There should be penalties for public servants that commit to contracts they have little interest in honoring.  And there should be redress against those that wear the cloak of public service and use their positions to advance their own careers – at the expense of their legitimate duties.

I ask our representatives and senators to immediately consider legislation that would hold our leaders accountable for the decisions associated with these kinds of situations.  We should establish a “Rudy Crew Law” that requires repayment (with interest) for top-tier appointeds, contractors, and electeds that fail to serve the tenure of a term of service and/or the duties assigned by contract.

And I ask our Governor and Attorney General to seriously consider legal remedy from Crew himself for malpractice – for contempt of office – a crime that may not yet exist, but should.

In the military, desertion in the field still warrants a death penalty: Crew doesn’t deserve a firing squad, but he doesn’t deserve a whole lot better…