When I was a kid the Yankees had a pitcher named Steve Hamilton. He was a lefty like me and about six foot six, and he would throw sidearm so he would absolutely destroy left handed hitters. To them, Hamilton's pitches must have looked like they were coming from first base. In those days baseball was played during the day so I would come home from school, turn the tv to the game, roll up a pair of socks, and mimic Steve Hamilton's pitching motion. I would watch -- one eye on the tv, one eye on the mirror -- as he would put his hands to his belt, pause for a moment, then slowly lift his right leg into a gigantic kick as his left hand would sweep around, waist level, and snap a curveball toward home plate. And I would be doing exactly the same, at the same time -- a mini-me decades before Austin Powers. My target was a pillow I'd placed across the room, sometimes the rolled-up socks would hit it with a satisfying pop, often they would sail into a lamp or out the door. No matter. I was learning to pitch from one of the best -- mistakes were unavoidable.
Clumsy segue to today's Presidential elections:
The United States is arguably the most visible country on earth. Even though we only have about 5% of the world's population, we are the leaders in just about everything -- especially innovation. We are the creators, the inventors of all kinds of good stuff from technology to government. We are the oldest democracy on the planet and consequently many other countries -- not all, but many -- look to us for guidance and leadership and inspiration. They may not always agree with us but they respect who we are, what we've done, and how we continue to do it. And in many cases, overtly or not, they imitate us.
Which is why election season is so consequential. Over the past few months I've had the opportunity to travel to Europe as well as to Latin America and Asia. In even the most casual conversations with locals, the elections come up as a topic of great interest. The predominant reaction I've gotten is confusion -- they just don't get what's going on over here. They often ask the question in comical terms -- Have you lost your minds? -- but many a truth is said in jest. They really do believe something has gone very wrong. They don't know who they should be following, or supporting, or even taking seriously. And they're aware what happens in America is often a predecessor to what happens in other countries, so now they're afraid of what may happen to them down the road.
They don't see our candidates the way many Americans do -- as buffoons. They see our candidates as shrewd politicians, each one with a well-defined strategy intended to get them elected. Trump is the America First isolationist. Sanders is the promise-them-anything socialist. Hillary is smart and experienced but flawed and untrustworthy. Cruz is the Bible thumper. Rubio is always on message -- whatever that message may be. And Kasich is the wholesome uncle trying to break into the party.
None of them are Steve Hamilton -- nobody I spoke with aspired to have any of our candidates be a model for their own country's leadership. Far from it.
One consequence of all this is it diminishes America in the eyes of the world. We become smaller, less trustworthy, less leader-like. We slip closer to become just another country -- a bit wealthier and stronger perhaps, but with leadership as flawed and erratic and myopic as everyone else's. The world really does expect more from us, and we're not giving it to them.
I want Steve Hamilton back.
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Sunday, February 7, 2016
This I learned from the President of Afghanistan
A couple of weeks ago I was walking down a New York street and Ashraf Ghani, president of Afghanistan, was speaking to me. Actually he wasn't speaking just to me -- he was being interviewed on NPR so a few other people were listening as well. But I wonder whether Ashraf's words hit them quite as hard as they hit me.
As interviews go it was pretty standard stuff -- How dysfunctional are politics in Afghanistan? Is the Taliban still a threat to your government's existence? Why is your economy falling apart?
And then came the reporter's most startling question: "Do you ever get angry at a situation?"
The question was unexpected because anger isn't the kind of subject interviewers generally ask politicians about. Their emotions fall into a squishy realm -- do we really care how they feel about issues they're dealing with? Not really. We mostly care about their positions and outlook -- Things are good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, easy or hard.
But this time the interviewer strayed from convention and asked Ashraf to break the fourth wall and allow us into his head as he deals with his big Afghan problems. "Do you ever get angry?" is the kind of question parents ask of each other when talking about how best to manage their children.
So I perked up a little, startled at the question but not expecting much of his answer -- just a politician's normal deflection.
But this is where the life-changing part comes in.
This is how Ashraf Ghani, president of Afghanistan, responded to the question: "If the situation makes you angry, then the anger becomes the issue."
This was for me -- no exaggeration -- a transformational moment. In one 12-word sentence life became a whole lot clearer. I suddenly saw there's the stuff that happens in my life (the "situations") and then there are my reactions to that stuff. That could be "the anger" the reporter asked about or, by extension, any other emotion such as fear, happiness, frustration, pride...anything really.
What became apparent to me in that moment, what Ashraf Ghani was really saying, is when a situation arises he either deals with the situation or with the anger it causes. But dealing with the anger is separate from dealing with the situation -- actually it deflects and detracts from it -- therefore making him much less effective.
Sudden clarity has the power to shock, and for the rest of that day I noticed how often I dealt with my reaction to a situation instead of the situation itself. For instance I was on the Lexington Avenue subway on my way to a meeting when the train suddenly stopped and remained motionless for some time. Since I was late for my meeting I noticed I was getting annoyed, then frustrated, then angry. None of which did anything to resolve the situation itself. When the conductor announced there was "a smoke situation in Union Square" causing the delay, I recalled Ashraf Ghani -- my anger had become the issue. So I shifted my focus onto what I had to do after the train began to move. Which it did, eventually. And I arrived at my meeting late, but way more composed than I would have previously.
Life is an endless minefield of situations: Last week I felt disappointment as one of my sons made a lunch date with me, and then canceled. The cable in my apartment died in the middle of an NFL playoff game. An important trip to Boston was canceled due to a snowstorm. Each time, separating event from emotion made a useful difference.
How often anger replaces the situation -- and how useless that is in solving anything.
As interviews go it was pretty standard stuff -- How dysfunctional are politics in Afghanistan? Is the Taliban still a threat to your government's existence? Why is your economy falling apart?
And then came the reporter's most startling question: "Do you ever get angry at a situation?"
The question was unexpected because anger isn't the kind of subject interviewers generally ask politicians about. Their emotions fall into a squishy realm -- do we really care how they feel about issues they're dealing with? Not really. We mostly care about their positions and outlook -- Things are good or bad, favorable or unfavorable, easy or hard.
But this time the interviewer strayed from convention and asked Ashraf to break the fourth wall and allow us into his head as he deals with his big Afghan problems. "Do you ever get angry?" is the kind of question parents ask of each other when talking about how best to manage their children.
So I perked up a little, startled at the question but not expecting much of his answer -- just a politician's normal deflection.
But this is where the life-changing part comes in.
This is how Ashraf Ghani, president of Afghanistan, responded to the question: "If the situation makes you angry, then the anger becomes the issue."
This was for me -- no exaggeration -- a transformational moment. In one 12-word sentence life became a whole lot clearer. I suddenly saw there's the stuff that happens in my life (the "situations") and then there are my reactions to that stuff. That could be "the anger" the reporter asked about or, by extension, any other emotion such as fear, happiness, frustration, pride...anything really.
What became apparent to me in that moment, what Ashraf Ghani was really saying, is when a situation arises he either deals with the situation or with the anger it causes. But dealing with the anger is separate from dealing with the situation -- actually it deflects and detracts from it -- therefore making him much less effective.
Sudden clarity has the power to shock, and for the rest of that day I noticed how often I dealt with my reaction to a situation instead of the situation itself. For instance I was on the Lexington Avenue subway on my way to a meeting when the train suddenly stopped and remained motionless for some time. Since I was late for my meeting I noticed I was getting annoyed, then frustrated, then angry. None of which did anything to resolve the situation itself. When the conductor announced there was "a smoke situation in Union Square" causing the delay, I recalled Ashraf Ghani -- my anger had become the issue. So I shifted my focus onto what I had to do after the train began to move. Which it did, eventually. And I arrived at my meeting late, but way more composed than I would have previously.
Life is an endless minefield of situations: Last week I felt disappointment as one of my sons made a lunch date with me, and then canceled. The cable in my apartment died in the middle of an NFL playoff game. An important trip to Boston was canceled due to a snowstorm. Each time, separating event from emotion made a useful difference.
How often anger replaces the situation -- and how useless that is in solving anything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)