“Listening is a public duty,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, December 2 - 8, 2011, 21.

LISTENING IS A PUBLIC DUTY

Take any business course, and one of the first things you will learn is that you should listen to those you communicate or have a relationship with, especially if these are your customers. Without listening to them, how would you know what they want? Why is this simple lesson lost on politicians?

Perhaps those who are used to be heard, who mention a problem and it’s fixed right away, or whose frustration is attended to immediately have no reason to complain. But then there are those, babies and employees, who seem to be ignored unless they scream. Babies don’t scream for no reason at all, we agree, just as employees don’t strike when they are happy at their jobs.

Businesses spend millions to find out if their customers are “satisfied” or if their employees are “fulfilled” at their jobs, because it matters. When the responses are negative, millions more are spent to change the business environment or model, improve product quality, or ensure safe work conditions. So, why is it so difficult for us to comprehend the screams of the Owls (Occupy Wall Street)?

I was asked if I like them. Democrats like them the way Republicans like the Tea Party. And I like neither party. Is “liking” the same as “agree with” or “sympathize”? What is there to like about them, after all? They are disorganized, disheveled, sometimes unemployed, and without agenda. Does Warren Buffet, in his latest tax reform proposal, like the Owls? He hasn’t been as vocal when the Tea Party started demonstrating two years ago, but now responds regularly to tax inequality with his own ideas.

What I like about them is that they keep on demonstrating, with or without agenda, like the baby that cries without being able to express pain, thirst, or hunger, like Councilman Tim Leigh who keeps on screaming about this or that. (Full disclosure: I have known him for years, and played golf twice with him even though I prefer to play alone.) The latest is his suggestion to pay council-members handsome salaries. Do I like him like a baby or like the Owls?

What I appreciate about the Tea Party, the Owls, and Councilman Leigh alike is that they scream so as to wake us up from our comfortable slumber. They are a little off, but their effort to bring attention to issues is worthy of the noise they make. They express, in their respective ways, a deep frustration not only because this or that is unfair, but also because no one is listening to them, especially in Washington, D.C.

Government agencies are tone deaf, while politicians prefer to hear only themselves. Sometimes, as Steve Jobs proved, you listen to yourself first and then get customer feedback. It’s a stretch to compare Leigh to Jobs, but he can be compared to his fellow real-estate mavens, like the Jenkins, who paid for a salaried strong mayor. Maybe he can enlist their support; maybe they will listen to him.

If the logic that brought Steve Bach to be mayor holds, then the same kinds of arguments ought to be considered in the case of the nine council-members. You get what you pay for, businesspeople and customers agree: if you pay nothing, you get nothing. If you pay well, you deserve to have expectations. Even though this argument, actually a cliché, is easily debunked, the citizens of this city bought it, and happily pay the businessman-mayor $96,000 annually. He must be worth it!

Following this recent change in the city Charter, why not debate the merits of the Leigh proposal? Why simply dismiss him as a loud-mouth know-nothing? Is he annoying? Or is his proposal annoying? Unless you answer yes to both of these questions, then stop to think about the proposal rather than the person who makes it, as Aristotle taught us years ago. When you confuse the speaker for the speech, when you attack the speaker’s character rather than the strength or validity of the argument, you commit what is called an ad hominem (it’s a logical fallacy).

If local pundits are just having fun at Leigh’s expense, so be it. Anyone in public office deserves to be scrutinized and mocked, challenged and praised, being the custodian of public trust. But as we give him a hard time, as he seems to capture needlessly media headlines, it wouldn’t hurt us to listen as well, consider what he has to say. If only 10% of what he says resonates with us, it’s better than hearing absolutely nothing from other elected officials who prefer to conduct their business behind closed doors.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS who listens to his students when they complain about their assignments. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com

“Let’s celebrate the right to assemble with equality,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, October 28 – November 3, 2011, 25.

Transparency

The Owls (Occupy Wall Street) won’t fly away. While a judge in Nashville refuses to issue arrest warrants, police officers in Portland, Oregon as well as in Denver have arrested protesters. More than half of those polled by the Time Magazine support the protests. Perhaps the Owls are reflecting a much broader frustration than politicians are willing to admit.

Are politicians that removed from their constituents? Is it because the majority of them belong to the 1%?  Or is it that the political process is removed from economic realities, except when it gets to the lobbying largesse they enjoy. Thomas Friedman may be right to claim that “Our Congress today is a forum for legalized bribery.”

It’s true that Democrats are comfortable staying on the government dole for decades: Robert Bird (D-WV), 57 years, Carl Hayden (D-AZ), 57 years, John Dingell (D-MI), 55 years (still in office), Jamie Whitten (D-MS), 54 years, Carl Vinson (D-GA), 51 years; the only Republican on this list is Strom Thurmond (R-SC), 47 years.

But is it true that decrying Big Government means necessarily that Republicans are quick to leave politics? Our state sent Edward Taylor (D) 1909-1941 for 32 years to the US Congress, Byron Rogers (D) 1951-1971 for twenty, and Joel Hefley (R) 1987-2007 for twenty as well; so, are Republicans trying to become Democrats?  

According to opensecrets.org, Rep. Doud Lamborn (R) received $107,462 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry; he happens to be the Chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. Paul Carestia, the group’s spokesman, cites $97 billion in tax dollars that will be given to fossil fuel and nuclear companies as subsidies from 2011-2015. That number was taken from Taxpayers for Common Sense’s 2010 “Green Scissors” report.

Perhaps Lamborn, and others like him, should volunteer to follow the blogosphere advice that members of Congress follow professional athletes who are contractually bound to wear the logo of their sponsors on their uniforms. At least we’d know who sponsors whom and whose legislative initiatives are represented.

Unlike Lamborn, our own Governor, John Hickenlooper (D), cannot be accused as being a paid representative of the oil and gas industry. Having had lunch with him a couple of weeks ago, I can report that his latest idea, in the spirit of public-private collaboration, is an expedited process for licensing gas drilling in Colorado under the caveat that if rules  are violated, fines will be high.

Pushing for energy independence, the Governor is also offering all counties and municipalities that are interested in conserving energy to pool resources and order gas trucks (cheaper when pre-ordered than converted) so as to save up to 30% of their own energy costs. Any other political entity in the state that wants to collaborate and find easy ways to save money should simply contact the Governor’s office. 

The frustrations expressed by the Owls are probably more akin to those expressed by the so-called “Bourgeois Revolutionaries” of India who are fed up with government corruption and a dysfunctional political process rather than to the Arab Spring. The Owls have civil rights, unlike their Arab counterparts, but, like their Indian counterparts, their own economic benefits have diminished over time, while those of the corporate elite have managed to increase.  

McDonald reported its 2011 third quarter’s net income rose by nine percent. Verizon Communication said its profits doubled in the last quarter. G.E.’s profits are in line with analysts’ expectations, and billionaire Rupert Murdoch and the rest of News Corporation’s board were reelected at the annual shareholders meeting as if no hacking scandal ever took place. In the meantime, unemployment won’t budge, foreclosures continue, and the Owls are feeling the pain.

Both economic and political realities depend to a great extent on the psychological disposition of the citizens. So, perhaps leaders in both communities can calm us all and put in place policies that clarify expectations.  After all, isn’t the middle-class the engine that propels the spending machine to ever greater heights? When frightened, people don’t spend.

Even when the Owls misdirect their complaints to Wall Street rather than to Washington, they still are expressing a prevalent public attitude. There is something American about this protest: seeking fairness so that when the rich get richer, it’s because they earned it, not because they rigged the system to ensure their winnings. No one has protested the wealth of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, or Michael Jackson. Their wealth was deservedly earned, no matter your personal opinions of them.

No one believes that we should abolish capitalism as such, only that it should reflect its own principles of equal opportunity and freedom of choice; that it should be based on Adam Smith’s insistence that a social fabric underlies marketplace exchanges. We are all in it together!

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS and believes in fairness and social cohesion. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com Previous articles can be found at sassower.blogspot.com