As President-elect Joseph R. Biden completes his cabinet, the Covid-19 vaccine distribution kicks into high gear, and the Trump presidency finally and mercifully comes to its violent, chaotic close, the need for national unification couldn’t be more apparent.

With the rioting at the Capitol on January 6th by extremist supporters of President Trump, our nation has come full circle in six-months of unchecked violence too often dismissed as protected civil discourse. No amount of parsing the legitimacy of complaints and grievances that animate extremists of all stripes can justify the attacks we have witnessed throughout the nation these past terrible months. Whether it’s mob destruction in our major cities, Antifa arsonists torching an historic church, or other extremists attempting to breach the White House or storm the Capitol, these acts simply must stop, and the perpetrators must be caught and prosecuted.

Sure, there are grievances and societal inequities that are reasons for protests, but we can’t continue a cycle where partisan factions refuse to concede the legitimacy of elections. The harm this does to the Constitution and the nation are incalculable.

The right’s denial of the legitimacy of the election results is a repeat of 2016 when the left refused to accept the legitimacy of Trump’s election and mounted the “resistance movement” that even before his inauguration called for his impeachment. Hillary Clinton refused to concede and even today claims Trump’s election was fraudulent. Now, abetted and disgracefully encouraged by Trump, the right cries foul and weaves a path of destruction through the halls of Congress.

How do we get past this crisis in our democracy, to whom do we look for guidance, wisdom and leadership? Certainly not our current partisan political leadership. It’s not Mitch McConnell who just lost his senate majority or Chuck Schumer who will take McConnell’s job. And it most certainly is not Nancy Pelosi who has abetted those refusing to accept the legitimacy of President Trump at every turn. She shamed herself and demeaned the House with her childish behavior in tearing up President Trump’s State of the Union speech. She continued that behavior throughout the Russian collusion investigation and the politically-inspired impeachment proceedings of 2020. And, perhaps worst of all, she politicized the Covid-19 crisis by refusing to allow the House to vote on a relief package for Americans hard hit by the pandemic. She admitted as much when asked by reporters if she made a mistake in prohibiting a vote before the election but of allowing it now. And, finally, she rushed through a one-day impeachment proceeding against Trump which I fear will sidetrack the early days of the Biden presidency and further divide the country.

Pelosi’s self-serving actions and arrogance would stand as unique monuments to ego if not for the existence and behavior of President Trump. How we survived the past four years of this attack on our democratic institutions stands as testimony to the strength of that democracy.

And while one of these miscreants has at least temporarily left the political stage, the other–Pelosi–remains behind as a reminder of all that was wrong in those four years. By the skin of her teeth and by endangering the health of 435 House members by allowing those who had tested positive for Covid-19 to vote on the House floor for her reelection as Speaker, she will be the voice of congressional Democrats for two more years. I’m afraid the Democrats will regret not having the moral courage–the guts–to send her to the back benches now. If not for the sake of the country, then for their own political survival as their slim majority looks to be threatened by a “red wave” in 2022.

So, who is going to step forward to be the conciliator, the person who is willing to risk the wrath of the extremists in both parties by creating bipartisan coalitions that breach the current doctrinaire chasms? From all accounts, there are a few who are willing to step into this void. Those mentioned are Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and Republican Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Mitt Romney. Led by Senator Manchin they already have come together to develop and pass the recent bipartisan Covid Relief legislation. With a 50-50 split in the Senate, these four stand to be power brokers for good government and as common-sense legislators that our new common-sense President can look to for help in threading the needle of a fractured political comity.

It would be a sad commentary, indeed, if all we had holding the middle against the tide of extremists populating both parties, were four legislators and a 78-year-old President who will be forced to summon every ounce of energy a man of his age can summon to bridge the philosophical differences that so divide us. And they will stand alone if we, the people, don’t stand with and in support of them.

Following the ugly episode at the Capitol and the violence elsewhere in the country, the vast center of our populace must give President-elect Biden a real chance to dissolve the recriminations, the anger, and, yes, the hatred that have come to represent the face of the American polity. Uniting the factions that exist in our country may not be possible but eliminating the venomous hostilities engendered by self-centered politicians, a ratings-obsessed media and extremists intent on destruction is a worthy and, hopefully, achievable goal.

​With my historical bent, I tend to look to the past for moments that mirror the present. Such a moment is the day of August 9, 1974, when Gerald Ford assumed the presidency from a disgraced Richard Nixon. The country then, too, was riven by dissent and violence. Nixon was hated with a vehemence that Donald Trump doesn’t experience on his worst day. Vietnam still raged, marches on Washington were common and the bombing of the Capitol by the Weather Underground was in the recent past. Into this morass stepped Gerald Ford.

Ford, much like Joe Biden, was a creature of Congress. Like Biden, he was well-liked, respected as a hard worker and an honest broker, whose word was his bond. He was not seen, however, as of presidential stature. But when thrust into office at that turbulent moment, he rose to the occasion. In a speech to the nation that day, Ford conveyed a message of hope and conciliation that Joe Biden would do well to emulate.

Ford said: “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over” … Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men. Here the people rule…As we bind up the internal wounds…more painful and poisonous than those of foreign wars, let us restore the golden rule to our political process and…purge our hearts of suspicion and hate.” And, most appropriate to the current moment,“ … so I ask you to confirm me as your President with your prayers.”

Joe Biden looks to me to be cut from the same cloth as Gerald Ford. But, he can’t bridge what divides us alone. It is we who must recognize the humanity in others, who must break free from acrimony and stubborn partisanship. It is we who must purge our hearts of “suspicion and hate.” It is we who should pray for Joe Biden’s success. Either we unite for the common good or we will surely perish in the muck of discord and division that now soils our society.

​​By: Matt Lindsey

​For the second time in our married life, my wife and I bought a house. Strange as it may be, one component of that stressful experience led me to an epiphany about how to increase civic participation.

To qualify for a loan, the bank needs to check your credit score. Every one of us has a credit score. It essentially tells the story of your past financial behavior. Pay your bills on time, and your score goes higher. Apply for a bunch of credit cards, and your score goes lower. You all know the drill here. And a better credit score has real-world financial ramifications. Your interest rate on a new car loan or home loan is lower.

Here’s the epiphany: What if we each had not just a credit score, but a civic score?

There’s a maxim (often misinterpreted) by Peter Drucker, “What gets measured, gets managed.” In the case of civic participation, we don’t measure it. And without a measuring stick, truly improving and fostering greater participation is very difficult.

I’ll admit at the outset that there are certainly operational challenges, but let’s save those until the end and focus on what a civic score might look like.

What factors might affect a person’s civic score? One’s score could be improved by actions such as:

• Registering to vote
• Voting in a general election, whether it was for President of the United States or for local water board—​the system might even incentivize votes in non-Presidential contests to encourage more active participation in what are currently lower-turnout elections like those for city council or school board
• Volunteering in the community or on a political campaign, advocacy group, or at a polling station
• Serving in a national service corps like AmeriCorps or SeniorCorps
• Obtaining and using a public library card
• Donating blood or registering as an organ donor

I’m sure this is just a partial list. I did leave off donating to charity, however, since the tax code already incentivizes that behavior. On the other hand, your civic score could be damaged by failing to vote in multiple elections in a row, postponing jury duty multiple times, or truly disengaged, sustained, or civically poisonous behaviors.

But why would anyone care about a civic score in the first place?

Perhaps voters demand candidates demonstrate and disclose their civic score (though one would think voters would demand candidates disclose their tax returns, too…). Perhaps localities could offer variable charges on “public” goods that require some element of fee support or reduce fines for certain violations (like parking tickets) based on a civic score threshold. Perhaps schools and colleges could determine ways to incentivize students to improve their civic score and in so doing, be able to teach both civic responsibility and offer a gateway to lessons on financial responsibility. These are just a few possibilities.

The greatest challenge, perhaps, is the specter of “big brother.” We would need to carefully determine how one’s behavior was recorded and where that data was secured. Yet, this barrier may not be as insurmountable as it seems on first blush. The volunteers at polling stations already ask for your name and record that you received a ballot. The state maintains a voter registration file already. Many volunteer groups keep track of their volunteers, if only because they want to encourage you to come back.
​
Such a plan actually could have especially strong effects on politics and volunteerism at the local level, a place where many communities sorely need more citizen engagement.

To return to the Drucker quote, one criticism has often been that the quote causes too many leaders to focus only on what can be measured, to the detriment of essential and valuable behaviors that cannot be easily quantified. While a civic score of this nature could indeed be useful, there are also many pieces of informed civic democracy that are difficult or impossible to count: how well do you pay attention to reasoned and fact-based sources of information on current events and how often do you gain exposure to viewpoints that challenge your own, for instance. Likewise, there are value-judgements that must be avoided about who you volunteered for, voted for, etc. Thus, a civic score would still be only one tool to use, alongside our judgement and ongoing, thankless efforts by journalists, activists, and others to improve civic participation in our democracy.
​
Nonetheless, those efforts would be greatly complemented by a civic engagement analogue to our credit score and foster a more perfect union.
​

​Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Foundation, where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

​By: Matt Lindsey

​One of the first lessons in elementary school is to put your name on your paper. In later years, not only is identifying your work crucial, but students are instructed on plagiarism and proper citation, so their teachers know what work is the student’s own. Without these items—a name on the paper and proof that the work is a student’s independent effort—teachers find assigning grades nearly impossible.

And so it is with legislators. But Kansas legislators essentially refuse to put their name on their papers or show their own work.

The Kansas City Star published a recent investigation and analysis of “secrecy” in Kansas government. It detailed numerous troubling aspects of the workings of our state agencies and how Kansas’ government is among the most secretive in the nation. One of the most dramatic points made, one that is no surprise to regulars at the Capitol, is this: More than 90% of the laws passed by the Kansas Legislature over the past decade have come from anonymous authors. For instance, 98 of the 104 bills that were passed during the last legislative session were introduced “by committee,” shielding the actual author or authors from identification. Kansas is one of only a small number of states where this practice is even allowed, and it is overwhelmingly abused.

Regular citizens of Kansas essentially have almost no ability to know who is crafting, sponsoring, or pushing for most of the bills that have been passed on concealed carrying of firearms, school funding, and almost any other conceivable issue. The Star explained why this practice is troubling from the point of view of participatory democracy. But secrecy of this nature is also easy to connect to the rising tide of intolerance that underlies much of Trump’s vision of America.

If you have a strong stomach and even stronger faith in human decency, spend a few hours venturing into the depths of Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, the comments on YouTube videos, or even the comment sections for many local newspapers. There you’ll find countless individuals expressing some of the more hateful and discouraging opinions imaginable. Many, if not all, are hiding behind a veil of anonymity. I’m not breaking any new ground with this observation, or the suggestion that on social media platforms, anonymity is used as a shield to protect individuals from taking responsibility for their most vile behaviors.

Anonymous bill sponsorships in Topeka are not identical to anonymous hateful rhetoric on the internet. But the two are interwoven pieces of the same illusory behavior that a responsible civic body should never embrace. Anonymity—whether online or in the state legislature—is a license to act without fear of consequence and without the need to weigh the costs of one’s decisions and actions. If I can say something hateful online, under a pseudonym or anonymously, I can always deny it was me who did so in contexts where there may be costs to those who express such things, but claim credit for my remarks only among those who might praise me.

Similarly, with an anonymous bill, legislators can avoid paying the “costs” of sponsoring a bill that may be unpopular by denying involvement with those who oppose the “orphaned” bill. Those “costs” are essentially votes for their opponent(s) in their next re-election campaign. At the same time, legislators can claim credit and reap the benefits—sometimes in campaign donations, but also in votes for their own reelection—from those who like the initiative.

In other words, anonymous bills undercut elections, which are essentially the only accountability mechanism Kansas voters have over their elected officials. Recalls in Kansas are severely circumscribed by law to very specific cases of felonies, misconduct in office, and failure to perform legally required duties. In practical terms, voters only get to hold our elected representatives accountable at the ballot box either every two or four years. Anonymous bill sponsorships are “get out of jail free” cards to aid their own careers, that our legislators are granting to themselves. And, unfortunately, the biggest defenders of the practice—including chamber leaders—readily admit that they do it to avoid the work and costs of putting one’s name on a bill.

But every voter in Kansas should respond, “so what?” Legislative service is hard. It should be. It’s too important not to be.

There’s a larger connection here as well, that should not be overlooked. Our nation is in the throws of an uprooting of civic norms. Our elected leaders, especially the President, his allies, and his defenders, choose time and again to empower those who previously used anonymity to exhibit some of the darkest impulses in humanity, be it racism, sexual violence, xenophobia, and more besides. And the President and his allies now have a novel approach to using anonymity. When confronted with evidence that they express these views, simply claim “fake news.” Yet, the intent is just the same as the online forums or the anonymous bill sponsorships in Topeka—to avoid accountability, to claim credit with those who agree and avoid paying any costs among those who might not.

Kansas need not continue down this path of using anonymity to shield legislators from explaining their work to their constituents. There is a growing bipartisan group of state legislators who have embraced a statement of transparency and are working to change the norms in Topeka. While I hope the 2018 session will be the year where the practice of anonymous bill sponsorship begins to fade, I sadly expect the opposite is true. And so, I hope voters in 2018 will support candidates who actively pledge to put their name on their work. How else are we to determine their grades? 

Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Foundation where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

​When John Carlin reached out a second time, I'm a bit ashamed to admit, asking me to contribute something useful to his blog, I thought, "Why me? I have more than enough to do and, besides, I'm retired, sort of." But trying to honor my word to him, here goes…
 
One of the questions I always ask my leadership students is whether they believe leadership is an inherent trait or one that can be taught. The consistent response is they believe it can be taught but that some individuals have an innate tendency to be effective leaders while others do not. Thus, I, as an educator, go about the task of teaching leadership skills to and discussing leadership traits and characteristics with aspiring "innate" and "non-innate" leaders. In reflection, where I have come up short is not stressing what I view to be the most pivotal characteristic that separates great leaders from the rest of the pack—courage.
 
Author Meg Wheatley has defined a leader as anyone who is willing to help. With all due respect to Meg, I seek an extension to that definition, one that includes not only the desire but also the courage to help, particularly when external constraints, multiple pressures, popular opinion, or whatever other obstacle makes it risky to do so.
 
Certainly, it is far easier to stay under the proverbial radar screen, to avoid offending anyone, including family and friends, and/or to leave it to some other leader to tackle the really hard issues, garnering a critical mass around conversations that matter and actions that follow.
 
I truly worry about the divisiveness that is pervasive in today’s world, particularly in our own country. To me the reasons are frightening, whether they be the result of: close-minded thinking (“I'm right; you're wrong”), a dismaying lack of civility (people can say anything to anyone at any time, too often via social media, where thoughts and words can become undisputed facts), or intolerance for others who look, act, and/or belief differently than “we” and, thus, become stereotyped, marginalized, and/or ostracized.
 
As a framework for leaders who summon the will and stamina to act with courage in order to help make our state, our country, and our world a better place, I suggest we follow the advice of Dean James Ryan as described in his address to the Harvard Graduate School of Education Class of 2016.
 
Here are his essential questions that he believes his graduates (and every leader) should be asking:

1. "Wait, what…” in order to preclude drawing our conclusions based on our own experiential base and/or bias.
2. "I wonder” which he says can be followed by “what if"—in order to stimulate thinking about how to improve any circumstance(s) to the benefit of the common good.
3. "Couldn’t we at least...?"—in order to take even one small step in getting past opposing interests and in the realm of shared ones, such as “Couldn’t we at least agree that we all care about ________?”
4. “How can I (we) help?”—in order to convey that we as leaders don’t have all the answers and that often the best solutions to issues, in part or in entirety, come from those most directly affected, if only we take the time to listen intently.
5. The final essential question is this: "What truly matters?" James Ryan says that this is the question that “forces us to get to the heart of the issue” and concomitantly to the essence of our own core values and beliefs.  

 
In conclusion, which means you are nearly finished reading this lengthy piece, may each of us find the will and stamina to act with courage, applying James Ryan’s five essential questions to improve our corner of the universe and beyond.
 
P.S. There is a great bonus question from James Ryan‘s address, but that is for another blog at another time.

Jackie Vietti, a native Kansan, was born and raised in Eureka, KS, where her father was a small town physician and her mother a teacher. Her educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in biological sciences from Kansas State University; a masters in community college teaching from Pittsburg State University; and a doctorate in adult and occupational education from Kansas State University. Additionally, she earned a secondary education teaching certificate from Emporia State University. She also later completed a number of leadership and management courses and was certified through Phi Theta Kappa to facilitate its leadership development course. Jackie’s professional experience encompasses 37 years in various capacities within the higher education system. Position held include Dean of Instruction and Interim President, Labette Community College; Dean of Arts and Sciences Instruction, Crowder College; and President, Butler Community College. She retired from Butler in 2012, following a 17-year tenure as its president. In 2015, she served as Interim President at Emporia State University for 7 months. Currently, Jackie facilitates the Kansas Community College Leadership Institute, an initiative to assist emerging leaders in honing their leadership skills and taking the next steps on their career paths. She also serves as a guest lecturer for the Iowa State University graduate program, Leaders in a New Century.

​While Juliet may have been having a hard time finding her Romeo, her search pales in comparison with the quest of traditional Republicans to find a one-size fits-all definition of today’s Republican Party.
​
But by any definition, the word “conservative” must be foremost in describing each and every variant of Republicanism in 2017. And, if that point is conceded, then I posit that at present, there are three Republican parties, none of which includes Donald Trump’s personal or political philosophy, which I will describe as “Trumpism."

So, let’s look at Trumpism first. By his own description Donald Trump is a nationalist who, as stated in his speech to Congress, represents America, not the world. He neither espouses Woodrow Wilson’s lofty rhetoric of making the world safe for democracy nor Ronald Reagan’s belief that America was the leader of the free world whose might would serve as a shield against tyranny and oppression. In some ways, Trump’s nationalism can be looked at through the prism of George Washington’s admonition against becoming entangled in foreign alliances and British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli’s oft-repeated belief that Great Britain had “no permanent friends nor permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” But a more recent and more accurate label for Trumpism, I believe, would be “Fortress America” preached by the isolationists of the 1930s. And, we all know how that turned out.

On the domestic and economic front, Trumpism is a “clean-out-the-refrigerator-stew” of leftist dogma and tea party phobia against free-trade, lobbyists, Wall Street, an unfair tax code, and the ultimately unifying whipping boy—the “establishment.” It’s a philosophy steeped in the populist belief that the rules are stacked against the little guy, the common man. Trump either brilliantly manipulated this paranoia into support from across the political spectrum or he was manipulated by those of the “alt-right,” led by Steve Bannon and Britebart News,  into a caricature of the “Ugly American,” which he seems to have embraced.

Very little in Trumpism translates even tangentially into the commonly understood and accepted tenets of traditional republicanism such as support for a strong national defense and the willingness to use America’s might in support of its free-world allies. Nor is Trump’s economic protectionism synonymous with traditional republicanism’s belief in free and unfettered trade. It’s a bedrock principle of the “movement conservative” that American workers in the capitalist system of “supply and demand” economics, free from the strangling hand of government overregulation, will outwork, outthink and out-produce their counterparts in countries hampered by government-imposed restrictions on commerce and the organs of production. Give American businesses and American workers a free hand and free trade agreements will always redound to America’s benefit.

This “movement conservative” brand of Republicanism is founded on the beliefs of men such as Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan and a generous dose of everyone’s favorite political philosopher, Reinhold Niebuhr and his “world as it is realism.” Their thoughts and beliefs are embedded in think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society and in stalwart conservative publications such as the National Review and Weekly Standard. Members of this movement conservative brand proved to be the most steadfast opponents of Trump’s candidacy and remain in that mode as his presidency begins. Traditionally, these conservative thinkers have formed the deep intellectual bench from which Republican presidents have drawn their cabinet members and White House economic, national security and foreign affairs advisers.

A second brand of today’s Republicanism is personified in Congress by the self-identified “Freedom Caucus.” This group of about 50 congressmen are doctrinaire conservatives whose mantra is small government, balanced budgets, 2nd Amendment purity and social conservatism. They are unified in their beliefs and are a power beyond their numbers because of their ability and willingness to challenge their party’s leadership on legislative initiatives which violate their principles. This “caucus” flexed its power in 2015 by ousting John Boehner as Speaker of the House because of his willingness to compromise with Democrats in order to advance needed legislation. Its ascendance and iron-clad refusal to compromise mirrors that of the Tea Party to which it continues to be beholden for electoral support. And while nominal supporters of Trump, these Freedom Caucus members may yet prove to be among his most vocal and forceful opponents over Trump’s disregard for fiscally sound legislative initiatives. Witness, their howls of disapproval over Trump’s plan to overhaul Obamacare.

The third brand of today’s republicanism is the “governing pragmatist brand.” Dwindling in numbers and influence, it is personified by senators and congressmen who still believe that the art of politics is compromise. Its leaders are senators such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Lisa Murkowski, Rob Portman, and Susan Collins. Its proponents in the House are fewer and farther between because of their fear of being “primaried”—singled out for being challenged in primaries by more conservative Republicans for the apostasy of compromising on bedrock conservative principles. Among the few “governing pragmatists” of the House are Tom Cole, Cathy McMorris Rogers and Kevin McCarthy. Not listed, but pragmatists nevertheless, are Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. McConnell, for all his bluster about opposing Obama at every turn, was still the one Joe Biden went to strike a deal. Ryan has to deal with the most recalcitrant of House Republicans to reach a caucus consensus but is the voice of reason behind closed doors.

​Make no mistake about the conservatism of this pragmatic brand of republicanism, though. These members and their peers will fight as hard as any brand for the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong and engaged national defense, individual rights and an adherence to a literal interpretation of the Constitution. But when the fight has been fought and the votes are not there, they will compromise to get the best deal possible with the least harm to their conservative principles. This is the strategy that legendary legislative Republican leaders such as Everett Dirksen, Howard Baker and Bob Dole followed and it particularly marks the successful presidencies of Ronald Reagan and Dwight Eisenhower. Reagan had his battles with Tip O’Neill and Eisenhower with Lyndon Johnson but at the end of the day, both were willing to take half a loaf now, vowing to come back for the other half at a later date.

Where does this Republican schism leave me and the many like me who hold dear our lifelong conservative principles but who can’t abide the gross and insulting politics of personal destruction practiced by a nominally Republican president nor the extremism that so deeply rives Congress to the point of impotence. Do we just ride out the storm and hope for an eventual return to civility and politics that put our nation’s interests first? To whom do we place our confidence that the different philosophies of the separate brands of republicanism can be joined in a consensus that works for the common good? Where do we look for guidance for an example of a leader strong enough to do what’s right because it is right? A leader strong enough to compromise for the sake of the country, political consequences be damned. As an historian, it shouldn’t be a surprise that I look to the past for such a person.

For many Republicans growing up in the 1950s, party identity was directly tied to Abraham Lincoln and his vision of a country dedicated to the principle of freedom and dignity for all Americans. In an era when the Democratic party was rife with segregationists officeholders throughout the south and had, in fact, sold its soul for electoral victories, Republicans were being led through consecutive elections by social progressives such as Alf Landon, Wendell Willkie, and Tom Dewey. Electoral losers all, still they were men one could be proud of as the leader of the Republican party. And while Dwight Eisenhower, when he entered presidential politics, could not be labeled as a progressive, he was a man of the law and Constitution who had led his country to victory in a war fought to sustain the principles that safeguarded human rights.

As a history nerd from the age of seven when I watched my first presidential nominating convention in 1952, one moment of my childhood that made a lasting impression on me was when President Eisenhower sent troops of the 101st Airborne into Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 to enforce the integration of its schools and to provide for the safety and protection of black children who simply wanted the same chance as their white classmates. In truth, Eisenhower had been a proponent of a gradual approach to school integration following the 1954 Supreme Court decision, knowing the resistance it would meet in the South. But once challenged on the law, he enforced it with all the might of the Federal government.

Eisenhower shaped my view on government as an instrument of power that should be yielded most often cautiously and sparingly, but aggressively and decisively when circumstances require it. Sending troops to Little Rock, building the national highway system, signing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 were instances where Eisenhower followed an expansive view of the use of Federal power. But perhaps his greatest achievements lie in his restraint of government. He fought continuous battles to balance the budget. Even as a man of the military, he said that every dollar spent on the military was a dollar not spent on education. In Korea, instead of expanding and prolonging hostilities, he agreed to a truce. In Vietnam, he refused to send American troops to support the French in their death battle in 1954 at Dien Bien Phu. And, perhaps in the greatest military decision of his life, Eisenhower refused the entreaties of his military advisers and others to send American soldiers to prop up South Vietnam in its civil war with the communist North Vietnamese (Would that future presidents had followed his example). And in his prescient farewell speech, Eisenhower warned against falling prey to the “Military/Industrial Complex.”  As a man of the military who entreated President Kennedy to restore his rank of five star general so that he could be buried as such, no such admonition could have had more prestige behind it.

(It is no wonder that in the C-SPAN 2017 poll of 91 historians Dwight Eisenhower was ranked as America’s fifth greatest President).

This concept of restrained and limited government balanced with the certain knowledge that there are circumstances and events when the forceful exercise of the full authority of government is both justified and necessary, is this conservative’s governing philosophy.

The belief in the concept of the common good is as old as Plato and the need to compromise for the common good is at the heart of the “separation of powers” in our Constitution. The willingness to pursue this accommodation to political reality is, to me, a strength to be wished for in our public officials, not a weakness.
At the end of the day, all of us—Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals—must recognize that maybe, just maybe, we don’t know all the answers or have all the wisdom. Maybe the other side has a legitimate point or two. We should be looking for politicians such as Dwight Eisenhower who understand and share those beliefs and who are strong enough to say, “I’m willing to compromise on this issue because it is the right thing to do.”

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.

​Early on in my life, my father taught me an important lesson, a mantra that has served as a useful guidepost. He said, many times, “If an excuse is needed, one can always be found.” There’s a parallel structure that shows up in the theory of adaptive leadership which says, in effect, that there is no such thing as a dysfunctional system—it’s always functioning exactly as the participants choose it to function to avoid losing something they care about. Even if we don’t consciously realize it, most of us tend to look for excuses to justify taking the path of least resistance rather than engage in the difficult, messy work of exercising leadership.

This mantra is one that keeps popping into my head as I watch the debate unfold in the Kansas legislature this year.

In my last post, just prior to the 2016 elections, I described the worries that my wife and I had about staying in Kansas for the long term, despite our deep ties to the state. I laid out several questions that surfaced in at our dinner table time and again. And I expressed some hope that the 2016 election in Kansas would help re-direct our state’s elected officials back toward the type of pragmatic, real-world approach to building a thriving place to live, work, and raise a family.

There was good news in November, at least here in Kansas. We saw many thoughtful voices elected (or re-elected) to the Kansas Legislature on the clear promise to address those very core issues. In both the primary and general elections, we saw individuals elected who campaigned explicitly on changing the way things worked in Topeka and getting our state back on a responsible path. Fifty new voices joined the chorus in the Statehouse this year. Many, although not all, heard loud and clear from voters in their districts that they wanted legislators to exercise leadership to fix the mess that the state’s budget and taxes are in.

All of us knew (or should have known) that the solutions were going to be difficult and come with very difficult choices. But we needed leadership that would at the very least stop digging a bigger hole in the state’s long-term finances, and then return some semblance of sanity and respect to the way the state addresses the priorities of state government, like schools, roads, and public health.

And now, we’re several weeks into the session, and the challenges remain and the questions aren’t answered. And we still haven’t even stopped digging the hole. But in the next couple of weeks, legislators across the political spectrum must step up and lead.

Here’s why that mantra – “if an excuse is needed, one can always be found” – won’t leave my mind. There are two easy paths and one hard path for moderate Republicans and Democrats to follow. 

One easy path, one that I’ve heard some Democrats give voice to, is this: “Unless we get a complete return to the pre-2012 tax structure, then we’re not voting for any fixes.” If a bill is just a partial fix—such as placing LLCs and Chapter S corporations back on the tax rolls—these folks are reluctant to support it. Their claim is that doing so won’t raise enough revenue alone, and they’ll be forced to vote for other, harder to stomach, tax increases later that will be used against them in the 2018 election cycle.

A second easy path, one that I’ve heard some moderate Republicans indicate, is this: “There’s no way the leadership or Governor Brownback are going to sign on to the type of big fixes needed.  So why should I stick my neck out and risk the ire of a well-funded primary opponent in 2018?” Their claim is that all the choices are so distasteful that it’s ok to go along with a plan to cut K-12 and higher education some more, borrow from the state pension plan some more (on illusory promises to “repay” it later), and balance the budget by leveraging the future to pay for the present. In other words, why vote for something that will be vetoed?
What makes both “easy” arguments frustrating is that they are both convenient excuses, ready just when one was needed.

Yes, Democrats are unlikely to get all they want out of whatever emerges. That’s what happens when the party has only one elected official west of I-135, and has exhibited a frustrating tendency to eschew systemic, statewide efforts in favor of focusing on strengthening strongholds in Douglas, Wyandotte, Johnson, Shawnee, and Sedgwick counties. When you’re outnumbered, it’s very hard to exercise real civic leadership, and it’s going to be messy.

Yes, moderate Republicans may have to buck their party leadership. But they weren’t elected to walk in lock-step with the party leadership. They were elected by a loud contingent of voters who wanted them to do their utmost to fix what is clearly broken, and to do it without further damage to core public services. When you’re challenging your “team’s” orthodoxy, it’s hard to exercise real civic leadership, and it’s going to be messy.

Make no mistake—2018 is looming. But if right-thinking legislators don’t step up and lead now, they’re likely to find many of us didn’t wait around. Voters need to hold their new legislators accountable now, and not just when Election Day rolls around. The excuses that could jeopardize things are too easily found if the rest of us are not remaining present and engaged throughout this legislative session.
​
And I hope every legislator knows another lesson my father taught me early on: “People remember the choices you make.”

​Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Fund, where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

​This past summer, the Board of Regents noted a disturbing trend. Fewer and fewer graduates of Kansas’ colleges and universities are choosing to stay here. Nearly half of those earning a bachelor’s degree are leaving the state within five years. It’s a starker picture for graduate degrees. 45 percent of master’s degree recipients and 67 percent of doctoral degree recipients leave within one year of graduation.
 
For young professionals, the choice of staying in Kansas (or moving to Kansas) is driven by the answers to the questions that my wife and I discuss nightly. And study after study shows that a state’s economy and the health of our communities bears a close correlation to the migration patterns of these professionals. If they stay (and more come), our state’s future is bright. If they leave, a downward spiral is difficult to escape.
 
After putting our young daughter to bed each night, my wife and I have been having nearly the same conversation for more than a year now. The details of our discussion might vary night to night, but at the core, the principal questions are the same. And I believe, from talking to friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers, that a similar conversation goes on in many houses across Kansas each evening. I believe these conversations are happening among college graduates too.
 
The central questions are these:

• Is the state of Kansas going to be able to recover from the enormous set of challenges that have been created by disastrous policy-making in Topeka over the past six years?
• When our children are old enough to attend public school, will we still have high-performing schools filled with teachers who—while still not paid nearly what their commitment and service is worth—feel valued and are encouraged to be innovative? Or we continue to see our elected officials pinch pennies and play shell games with school finances as a means to justify other agendas?
• Will our local officials continue to be placed in a heavy straightjacket by state leaders, preventing cities and towns from addressing local infrastructure and social needs like libraries, parks, transit, and public safety? Because of those damaging limits, will our home increase in value in parallel with a healthy, thriving, community? Or will the mythology of the primacy of low business taxes crowd out our abilities to make our neighborhoods better?
• Are our retired, public teacher parents, going to have the retirement income that they paid for? Or do we need to plan for the day when KPERS is no longer solvent at all because our elected leaders “borrowed” from their share until it was gone?

 
These questions—and the answers—matter deeply to us. And I know they matter deeply to thousands of others like us.
​
Kansas used to be a place of pragmatism, bipartisanship, and moderation. These past six years have instead been times of blind ideology, faith in discredited economic theory, and efforts to create a terrifying dystopia where there are guns nearly everywhere, affordable health care options nearly nowhere, and proudly mean-spirited attempts to have the government define boundaries on the right of each of us to make a life with someone we love. And because of that dark turn, many have turned away from Kansas, putting our future at even greater risk.
 
Moreover, we must remember this. Many like me—and young professionals and college graduates who are weighing whether to stay or to leave—are privileged to be able to do so. But many Kansans who are being hurt by the direction our state has taken do not have the luxury of this same choice. For some, their economic prospects, whether due to poverty or profession, do not allow them to easily leave Kansas even as the state makes their lives harder. For others, the demands of family, whether it be attending to parents or grandparents in decline, or medical conditions of a spouse or children, are likewise constrained from choosing freely. They are all forced to endure whatever Kansas throws at them.
 
That’s why the answers to these questions matter. It matters because we have to stop digging and start rebuilding. It matters because we need to elect leaders who want to make Kansas a place everyone sees as a beacon of practicality and commitment to community. 
 
Next month, it is essential that we all take steps to turn the ship of state around. I hope everyone reading this votes. I hope everyone reading this finds one more person to encourage to vote, one person they can drive to the polls, one person they can call to remind to vote. We need to elect leaders who are focused first and foremost on getting our state’s fiscal affairs in order, and then on returning to pragmatic approaches to how to meet the purposes of government—to ensure each and every Kansan has the ability to live safe, educated, and healthy.

​Matt Lindsey is the president of the Kansas Independent College Association & Fund, where he coordinates a range of programs designed to strengthen Kansas' private, non-profit, colleges through collaboration, governmental advocacy, and public engagement and to support the ability of college students to choose and afford an effective, high-quality college education that fits their individual goals. Lindsey previously worked as the Executive Director for Kansas Campus Compact and as an adjunct faculty member with Kansas State University's Staley School of Leadership Studies. He also worked in Washington, DC as the Senior Associate for Freedman Consulting, where he advised non-profits, philanthropies, and civic groups on public advocacy strategies.

“Why do you say good?”
“Because it shows a woman can do the same things a man can do. And it’s square.”

For the last several months I have been asking people informally what they thought about a woman being the Presidential nominee of a major political party. Most of the responses have been in the nature of, “Well, I guess it’s significant. But women are already in important positions—governors, legislators, CEOs of large companies—and women have been the leaders of a lot of other countries.” So when I got an unqualified good backed by two succinct reasons, I took note.

The good came from one of my grandsons, a ten-year old. His eight-year old brother agreed (they don’t always). By “square” I knew they meant “fair, right.” I knew I would get an unqualified good from my mother (pictured above) as well. She’s eighty-nine and fought for equal rights throughout her life. Once she asked a school official why women teachers were not paid the same as men teachers and, when told that men got more because they were the heads of households, she pointed out several women teachers who were the heads of their households but still were not paid as much as the men, even the single men with no dependents. As a teacher during a time when there was no teacher due process law in the Kansas statute books (a time which has returned under Sam Brownback’s administration), she could have lost her job for such a question. But she had the courage to challenge unfairness over and over again.

I am amazed that the younger and the older understand the symbolism and fairness of Hillary Clinton being the Democratic nominee for President, while so many of the in-between—those in their 20’s, 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and even 60’s—seem nonchalant. Often, women in these in-between age groups add that they, themselves, never had to face discrimination. But when I press further, asking questions based on what I know about them and their jobs, they invariably come up with one or two instances of unfair treatment. I have wondered if their hesitancy in admitting they had incurred discrimination is grounded in the same emotion voiced by a boy around the age of my grandsons in a 1968 CBS television broadcast. He was standing at the rear of a school cafeteria because he had no sack lunch and no money for the hot lunch due to poverty. When asked how he felt watching other children eat lunches, he lowered his head and replied, “I’m ashamed.”

I fall within the “nonchalant” group but I am beginning to get the symbolism and fairness my grandsons and mother understand so well. Hillary Clinton impressed my mother long before 1995. However, the speech Hillary made in Beijing that year at the United Nations’ Fourth World Conference on Women in which she stated, “Human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights,” cemented my mother’s view of Hillary as a compassionate, discerning leader not afraid to speak out against injustice and unfairness.

The anti-Hillary rhetoric I have been hearing is much too much the rhetoric used against women in the past—characterizing women as weak and evasive. The word weak comes to mind when I think of Donald Trump sneaking a political speech into a church in Flint, Michigan, being stopped by the minister, then the next day, behind the skirts of “Fox and Friends,” claiming the minister was so nervous, she was shaking. The word strong comes to mind when I think of Hillary making that speech in Beijing. The word stamina comes to mind when I remember the 11-hour day of questioning Hillary handled last October before a House Select Committee. I would have been tempted to launch into several of the members of that committee for their policies of cut cut cut government until it can’t handle what we expect it to handle. But Hillary stayed calm throughout the day.

The word evasive should come to every voter’s mind when thinking of Trump’s refusal to disclose his tax returns. The word unfair comes to my mind whenever I read a Facebook post, editorial cartoon, or newspaper article or hear a radio talk host or television commentator claiming Hillary has a “truthfulness” problem when Donald Trump has been identified by Politi-Fact as the least truthful national politician (the same independent fact-checking website identified President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Jeb Bush as the most truthful of the current national politicians). Are we giving Donald a pass for his untruthfulness and other bad behavior because he is a businessman, not a politician? Sounds strangely like the “head of household’ justification my mother was given for why women got paid less than men—not based on reason but, instead, rooted in prejudice.

At times I have felt that the anti-Hillary rhetoric is aimed at making us, as women, feel shame, as if this is the emotion that will keep us from voting for Hillary or supporting her with enthusiasm. Don’t let them shame us. They are not being square.

Feel good about Hillary running for President. It’s only right to give her the same opportunity you would give a man to win your vote. Study her economic program. The program she has presented is more specific and more economically viable than any of the other candidates’ economic programs. Listen to what people from other countries say about her leadership. I do not have many international contacts, but this past year I have talked to two young ladies from South American countries, a married couple from France (the day after the Paris shootings), and a man from England, all of whom said Hillary is well respected abroad. Listen to the New Yorkers who repeatedly chose Hillary to represent them in Congress. Listen to my mother, who knows discrimination is real.
​
And listen to my grandsons. Be square.

​​When considering the question of leadership in both the Republican and Democratic parties in 2016, one must concede that neither party is in a traditional leadership mode. The Democrats at least have a semblance of a traditional structure with President Obama serving as both the real time and soon to be titular party chief. The Democrats also can claim a hierarchy of support, however tepid it may be, for their presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. And while it looked for a time that Bernie Sanders’ firebrand rhetoric had put the torch to the Democrats’ strategy of running on a referendum of Barack Obama’s record, the party has surprised me in how quickly the Clinton and Sanders factions coalesced into a seemingly unified front in the face of the Donald Trump evisceration of the Republican party.

But in developing a cohesive ideological platform with top-down leadership, the Democrats had to pay respect to the Sanderistas and their version of “we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.” Just because Bernie Sanders played the good soldier and compromises were made for the sake of party unity, Democrats as well as Republicans are faced with the fact that leadership in both parties has bubbled up from the disaffected masses. Attention must be paid.
​
However, as much as vox populi—​the voice of the people—​presents a problem for Democrats, for a real nightmare let’s take a look (reluctantly for me) at the Republican Party, circa 2016.
​
Given the debacle that characterizes the current state of the Republican party, one is left to wonder if anyone is in charge or if it is a perfect personification of what the late Jimmy Breslin titled his book on the Nixon administration, “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.” Nobody seems to be in charge. There is no cohesion among Congressional Republicans, let alone a unified voice of support for Donald Trump. In fact, both House and Senate Republicans standing for reelection have been told by their congressional leadership that they are released from any bonds of party loyalty in their efforts to stay afloat amid the high level of political disdain for Trump. Daily, increasing numbers of Republicans rebel with revulsion at the prospect of supporting, much less voting for Donald Trump. Among the intellectual elite occupying the suites of conservative think tanks, non-support of Donald Trump is the badge of honor worn by most. And while finding a viable third-party true conservative candidate continues to resonate with these ABTs, “Anyone But Trump,” intellectuals of the Right, the reality is that the next President is going to be either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

So, while the causes of the leadership vacuum are many, the result is a party in free-falling chaos. Split between “movement conservatives,” guided by the fading but still vibrant echoes of the Goldwater and Reagan mantras of individual responsibility and constrained government, and the simplistic populism of the tea partiers and their demagogic leader Donald Trump, the party has, in effect, ceased to be a party. In the simple, homespun language of Will Rogers, who when asked in the 1920s to which political party he belonged, he answered, “I don’t belong to any political party. I’m a Democrat.” Substitute Republican for Democrat in 2016, and I think you have an accurate reflection of the chaos of present day Republicanism.

But what caused this disaffection with the leadership of both parties? In this age of instant communication is there a need for recognizable party leaders? Is the “establishment” such an anathema in both parties that identification as a leader of the establishment an automatic disqualifier for a leadership role? Do the anti-establishment wings of both parties have something to say that is important and worthwhile? Populism of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries sprang from the disaffected “Grange Movement” members of the mid-west whose champion was William Jennings Bryan and from the poor whites of the south who were championed—​I would say, used for political advantage—​by demagogic politicians such as “Pitchfork” Ben Tillman of South Carolina, Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, and Eugene Talmadge of Georgia.

The disaffected of today, I’m sad to say, bear a resemblance to their forebearers of a hundred years ago. On the left are the struggling members of the lower middle class and the poor whose good-paying blue collar jobs which sustained their fathers have disappeared overseas. College is a pipe dream and a nice home and a car increasingly becoming one. Who to blame? Politicians, trade deals, banks, globalization, and a technological revolution that has eliminated the need for unskilled labor.

On the right are the same struggling members of the poor and lower middle class who lost their jobs and can’t find new ones with dignity and fair pay. They see as bleak a future as their counterparts on the left and blame many of the same politicians and institutions, but with the added poison of xenophobia abetted by Donald Trump. It’s not just the corrupt establishment, it’s the “illegal” Hispanics flooding America from the south. It’s the dangerous, murderous Islamists, both beyond our borders and homegrown. It’s the Chinese, beneficiaries of unfair trade deals. It’s the African-Americans who take more from the treasury than they give. It’s anybody and everybody who are easy targets of blame for those who no longer accept individual responsibility for their plight.

In short, there is a combustible polity in America that must be addressed. It is a problem that is bigger than one party or one President. It must be addressed by both parties and the American people working together for the common good. It is certainly a problem that cannot be subjected to the simplistic gingoism of Donald Trump. America experienced its anti-immigrant Know Nothing party in the insular 1840s. Today’s America cannot suffer such ignorance and hatred. That is why I, a lifelong conservative, am voting for Hillary Clinton. I wish she were more conservative. I wish she were as conciliatory as her husband and as open to compromise, because America will not be brought together by someone who has all the answers. I wish that she were deemed more trustworthy by her fellow Americans. I wish that she was Ronald Reagan and that Tip O’Neill was the leader of the Democrats and that partisanship ended at 6pm over cocktails. But if only one wish comes true, it will be that Hillary wins the election and that Donald Trump is consigned to the dustbin of history with all of his preceding demagogues.

Richard L. Claypoole served in a variety of leadership positions for the National Archives, including being the Director of the Office of the Federal Register and the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries and Museums. He was an editor of the Public Papers of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and editor in chief of the Public Papers of Ronald Reagan.