Henderson West's Campaign Platform

Excerpt from Chapter 2...pages 30, 31

------------

As part of my formal announcement, the very first thing I did was state clearly and publicly that I would propose no policy platforms.  What I did actually state at the time was the following:

•  I will deal with each issue separately or as it materializes;

•  I will think and work in the best interests of America;

• The American public will be more involved in government;

• Employment in the public service will be effective and considered a privilege.

These four items were all I ever promised to do if I were elected president.

The reality of the world in 2012 was that it was just too complex and too varied to have any type of formal agenda or ideology to rely upon.  Most issues and events materialize out of nowhere and have no historical context (or in some instances too much) and are completely inharmonious with doctrines or previous legislation.  Further, most modern issues had too broad an application to generate a lot of interest by the American public.

Therefore, I decided to make no claims that “I would create jobs, institute health care, would democratize the world, no opinions of foreign issues” etc.  The people at the time were astounded that I made no election type promises, but I knew from my own observations that making promises based on a future situation that I did not have any first hand facts on was ridiculous.  For example, every American politician in the previous forty or fifty years had indicated that they would balance the budget but as soon as they get into power they have found a reason to suggest why they can’t do it.  I just didn’t see the point in what I considered pandering to the American public.

I sensed that most Americans had so little faith in political promises that I was simply asking US citizens to trust me based on my business record and the fact that they liked and respected me.  I did not want to appear to be a traditional politician and, to be honest, it was not in my nature to act like that anyway.  I just wanted people to feel that they were voting for someone who would do his best to do the right thing by America rather than just another person in the role for theie own personal benefit and power and was a puppet to their party.

The Dilemma of Islam

The issue that we are facing with the Islamic religion is a major one.  Whether or not religious freedom can lead to a complete overhaul of the tenets that our nation was founded upon.

By allowing Muslims to enter our society we essentially run the risk that at some point in the future this group becomes powerful enough to usurp the fundamental nature of America.

For example in Britain, a recent poll was conducted within the Muslim community and 40% of the respondents indicated that they would like to see Sharia Law imposed.  Right now, that number does not constitute a large number of voters but it clearly articulates the point for the future and one that we in America have to consider.  Is it right to allow a group of people who are fundamentally opposed to the American way of life into the country?

The First Amendment of the Constitution offers religious freedom as a fundamental right of humanity.  However, if those claiming religious freedoms are not interpreting that doctrine in a manner consistent with freedom but rather pro ports a moral code and political direction that undermines the basic philosophy of individual freedom then should it be opposed?  I would say 100% absolutely.


The Constitution further suggests that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion..." though it does not go as far as separating church and state as many people believe  It is obvious that religious fundamentals are not universally shared but the basis of individual freedom is an ability to make independent decisions.  Any group or organization that disagrees with this view point should be resisted in their access to American institutions or their ability to construct their own.  Individuals would be able to worship as they choose but any attempt to organize to undermine principals of freedom and independence should be opposed.


It is not necessary to ban Muslims from moving to the USA but efforts should definitely be made to curtail them from gaining any type of influence.  For example, several steps can be taken at this point to curtail an emergent political movement that supports Sharia Law or strives to change the nature of America.


The first would be the banning of any Muslim from holding political office at any level.  Two, limiting of mobility within the nations borders upon entry.  Thirdly, the holding back of US citizenship until individuals have demonstrated an ability to appreciate the principals of the western world and finally the out right ban of Muslim schools.


Though these thoughts sound counter-intuitive to the basic fundamentals that the USA holds paramount, keep in mind that America has only ever had to deal with fundamental opposition to freedoms on this scale once before and that lead to a Civil War.  The goal is not to limit individual freedoms rather ensure that the thinking and principals that have allowed the world to thrive continue unabated by a religious/political movement at the institutional level.

The Presidency is Undemocratic

Obama or Romney.  It won't matter in the least.

Once again the lack of choice is testament to the undemocratic nature of the American political system.  On one hand you have a candidate who has failed miserably to inspire America and stem the downfall of the economic system and on the other hand you have a candidate who is an opportunist who has zero credibility in terms of leadership.  There really is no preferred choice.

The Presidency was designed to be a powerful leadership position for the entirety of the USA.  It was to be a position of intelligence, might, and most of all a defender of the Constitution and the multitude of freedoms that the USA was trying to establish in the world.  In our current era, the Presidency should be the number one defender of these same liberties.

The oath of office makes the Presidents role extremely clear.  


"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Over the years this oath has essentially been abandoned by the office of the President.  The Presidency has devolved into being merely a position for the top party representative.  This person ultimately is beholding and controlled by the parties themselves and the Constitution has been forsaken.  Therefore, the President does not represent America.

The democratic ideals and principals of the US have been completely usurped.

Posts From the Road: Denton Record-Chronicle

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas so I will comment on the Denton Record-Chronicle cover story regarding the use of original artwork to decorate storm drains with an environmental agenda.  http://www.dentonrc.com/local-news/local-news-headlines/20120426-storm-drains-to-sport-murals.ece
---------------------
The art world is one that I support and participate in.  I have several original artworks in my own collection and have contributed to several performance art groups over the years.

There are four aspects to the art world.  1) the purists who feel art should be a statement of the artist only, 2) businesses who buy and sell at all levels from high-end masterpieces to retailers who sell wall hangings, 3) hobbyists who dabble and perhaps someday hope to make a living and 4) the uninvolved which is basically 95% of America which holds no real affinity or passion for it.

In the instance, local artists are developing art pieces that are attached temporarily to storm drains to discourage dumping of toxins into the system as they drain directly into Lewsiville Lake.  The question I pose is whether artwork done at the request of a specific municipal government or with the sole purpose of creating an environmental message a valid form or art?

I would propose that it absolutely is art. Art is the product of what I would refer to as skillful imagination and reflects aspects of culture and humanities.  I would further add that art has always been developed with some form of commercialism or to support a societal trend.  Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel at the behest of the Catholic church, Impressionists in their period almost all had benefactors who subsidized them and they ardently tried to be seem at Salon in Paris, Picasso painted pictures on napkins as currency for his drinking and perhaps even Jackson Pollock who was a definitive troubled artist relished in his fame for a period before succumbing to his alcoholism.  Many governments over the years as well have utilized artwork to craft their cultural vision though in fairness you can easily dismiss these attempts at state directed artwork as horribly unethical.  Obviously I am referring to Hitler and Stalin in this instance.

Some of the greats of the 20th century as well were quite amenable to making their artwork available for purely advertising purposes.  Norman Mailer comes to mind as one of the greats who utilized his artwork for Coca-Cola and TIME magazine.  If you extend art to include musicians then I think one of the goals of 99% of today's`modern recording artists is to have their music selected for use in advertising so commercialism obviously is not a deterrent to them.  Why would visual artists be held to a higher standards other than the fact that some purists hold them to a higher expectation and therefore are extremely reluctant to allow them access to galleries and press coverage.

I would suggest then in the 21st century it should not be surprising in the least that artwork has shifted to reflect societal trends as a driving force for the inspiration of many artists.  Plus, as benefactors rarely exist anymore and any type of cultural funding continues to be cut, then artists need to make a living so simply through necessity they are required to take contracts that may not necessarily reflect their true identity but enables them to put bread on the table.  The world of the struggling artist is one thing that has not changed much over the years.

The subjectivity of art though has not changed one bit.  Whether art is hanging in the MOMA or attached to a storm drain, it is still up to the individual who is viewing it to have final say as to whether it appeals to them or not.  Art should never be limited or restricted due to its purpose and should just be evaluated by effect.  In reality, today`s storm drains might be the great treasures of the future.

Post from the Road: Dallas Morning News

I am on a mutli-city road trip for the next couple of weeks so I will take my inspiration from news stories found in the local newspapers:  As I am currently in North Texas I will comment on the Dallas Morning News cover story regarding the alleged bribery scandal at Walmart in their Mexican operations.
----------------
One significant challenge all multinational companies face is adapting their current business practices to foreign cultures.

The Walmart story is a perfect example of just such a challenge. Walmart (it is claimed) paid bribes mostly in 2005 to local government officials in order to accelerate the process of Walmart expansion in Mexico.  Obviously bribery is an illegal business practice.

The second questionable behavior is in terms of Walmart's investigation of the in incident and the subsequent silence and evasion to regulatory agencies.

This second issue reflects the requirement for transparency in private companies and is testament to the need for the "Spirit of Law" mandate I set out in a prior post (April 12, 2012).  Companies need to at a minimum attempt to play by the rules and not try to hide findings purely for the desire of avoiding poor press and subsequent drops in share holder value.  It is inherent in any fairly run organization, that shareholders have access to truthful information in order to make educated decisions in terms of financial investment.  Executive level management has to come to believe in this philosophy and "the Spirit of Law" provisions would be useful in ensuring appropriate behavior. In instances like this though whereby obviously illegal activities are being undertaken then the Executives need to be liable and subject to criminal punishment.

The bigger issue of course goes back to the first point regarding the bribes. In the era when Sam Walton was in charge, Walmart was generally seen as an extremely admirable and ethical organization in context of its operations. Walton would never have authorized or condoned bribery as he knew that was bad for business in the long run. Short-term profiteering once again is just testament to the selfishness and shortsightedness of many of today's CEO's. It is also representative of the win at all cost too many of today's boomer possess overall in their attitude towards life in general.

American companies specifically have to become the role model for appropriate corporate behavior globally. There can be no challenge to put ethical agenda as a primary objective of business expansion. American companies have to be the benchmark on how foreign companies conduct their operations and also how foreign governments learn to work with them. Economic expediency can never be the only purpose of an American company in a foreign land. The era of exploiting foreign nations is long over.

Finally, as more and more countries around the world have access to capitalism then there is more and more competition for investment dollars. American companies have to be the ones that lead the way in making their profits honestly and ethically in countries where they operate. American companies have to embrace the mindset that if they do business in a foreign land then they have to bring the experience and advanced business knowledge to those regions in order to expedite global development. Successful business practices by these American companies will have positive influence over foreign areas and aide to bring them into a positive, honest and free market environment. Under this model, American companies can thrive by opering new markets without having to embrace the poor business environment that preceded them.

The notion of "ethical capitalism" I put forth earlier (February 28, 2012) is the future for American companies. Brand value and revenue streams will flow to the companies that operate in the most humane and honorable way possible. Corporate valuation and investor confidence will be given not from just domestic operations but international as well.

The Party System Has To Go

The Democrats and Republicans have to go. The party system has fundamentally crippled government and stymied any type of effective debate in the nation.

The fundamental flaw in party ideology is that it assumes a predetermined response to any issue that might arise. These responses sadly just fall into the black or white, right or left typical responses and as a result no enlightened dialogue is generated. The result is that the government becomes just an organization that recycles the same old policies and innovation becomes stagnant.

Secondly, the party system dissuades most talented people who have their own opinions from participating in the political process. Very few individuals who are self-determined and hold their own views are willing to subjugate those views for the acceptance of a party. Therefore, the party tends to attract only individuals who are concerned with power, wealth or recognition rather than those who can generate solutions in a complex modern world.

Thirdly, party politics dismisses the democratic process. Though the process of becoming a member of a party or its leader might appear democratic the result is not so. The individual whom ultimately makes it to power becomes a party representative first and foremost and that loyalty is the priority.  Toeing the party line is fundamentally more important than representing your constituents and infinitely more important than putting your own opinion into the debate.  America suffers greatly as a result.

Finally, the party system has simply fallen into a mindset of opposition whereby any and all actions initiated by the other party is inherently wrong.  This in and of itself is not necessarily bad as opposition can be effective, but it has gone so far that opposition has become synonymous with skewering the opposition as evil or un-American.  This is unacceptable practice in a democratic environment adn really serves no purpose other than alienating Americans against each other.

The party system needs to be 100% replaced so that those elected to office are able to perform their role in a free manner unencumbered by party pressure.

Bringing Back Ethics: "The Spirit of Law"

America needs to bring back morality and ethics into the private operations of corporations and in the mindset of individual citizens.

One hallmark of the modern world is that organizations, corporations and individuals try to find loopholes in the system that work for their advantage and then stand on the their principals and claim that they did nothing wrong when it blows up. This practice absolutely has to be ended.

The recent Wall Street meltdown is a primary example of this practice whereby the financial firms ultimately had a whole team of lawyers who tear apart every piece of legislation in order to find the gaps or the opportunities within the legislation that are open to them. They then proceed to find ways around the overseeing institutions such as the SEC in order to continue their actions. 

The obvious problem in this approach is that it undermines the intent of the legislation and results in border line illegal activities that benefit very few people but also serve to undermine society in general. Whether one sees intervention in the private sector as socialist or not it has been demonstrated time after time that if left to its own devices, the free market forces will do what is in their selfish best interest and then not be held accountable for any damage done to others.  They do this with a clear conscience as they are able to claim that they have technically done nothing illegal.

The issue is not that they have been able to usurp the legislation rather that what they have done, though not technically illegal, it is definitely 100% unethical.  Morality has gone out of the current American way of thinking.

However, in order to overcome this monstrous gap in America, weherby societal ethics have been abandoned by the "ME generation", what needs to be implemented are "Spirit of Law" provisions whereby the actual intent of the legislation is considered legally binding over and above the actual specifics of the legislation itself.

In today' world, it is pretty unrealistic to imagine that any legisaltive body would be able to create a set of rules that will cover every and all future situations that might arise or have yet to be imagined.

The "Spirit of Law" legal provision will make individuals and corporations legally bound to follow through on the intetnion of the legisaltion rather trying to find ways to circumvent it. Under the "Spirit of Law" mantra any entity that finds loopholes in legislation and then exploits them would be held criminally liable and subject to prosecution.

Americans have to embrace a mindset whereby they respect the intent and spirt of the US way of life rather than imagining ways to co opt it for their own selfish purposes. 

Myanmar: How To Help Emerging Democratic Nations

The election of Suu Kyi yesterday in Myanmar is a great opportunity for US foreign relations in terms of assisting the evolution of democracy in a new part of the world.

The traditional USA role of "all or nothing" support for the pro-democracy forces has to be abandoned by a willingness to work with the entirety of the Myanmar government, including President Thien's ruling party in spite of it's human rights history.

America has the opportunity now due to softening hard-line domestic policies there to act as a consultant along with other foreign powers rather than as an unilateral force which imposes it's will. The best way to lay a foundation for a free and democratic future in Myanmar is to offer expertise and infrastructure and not militant rules and threats.

As many more emerging countries enter the global economic community, I would suggest that an advisory group be established that represents many national and private interests such that Myanmar and others avoid many of the democratic failures which ultimately end up no further ahead in the long run (look to just about every country in Africa for examples).

The advisory panel goals should be to stabilize the country, encourage and protect foreign investment, educate the citizens on democratic principals and support the ruling party. The advisory board needs to be collaborative rather than punitive such that the nation can move forward in the right direction and will also help to avoid the attempted coup's and public rebellion which seem to be inevitable in the 21st century.

A democratic and economically focused international advisory board would be a first step in assisting emerging countries cope while maintaining their sovereignty through non-political or military intervention.

George Clooney: A Good Role Model For All

George Clooney is a good example of how private citizens should be doing things.

He selects a cause and then goes on-ground to actually see first hand what is happening and then uses his democratic freedom to try to make changes.  He provides funding, he lobbies Congress, he goes as far as to  get arrested (for some reason?) to make his point and to bring about relief in Sudan.

Whether you agree or disagree with his causes or his methods is inconsequential.  The fact is that anyone and everyone has the opportunity in America to do the exact same thing.  Of course, George has access to his personal resources that allow him to take on a very active role in foreign countries and being an actor he also has the celebrity factor to make his chosen causes more prominent in the media.

All individuals have the ability to do the exact same thing in their local community.  The freedom to choose to be involved and to push for the social or institutional changes that they deem relevant to them.  As we enter this period during the evolution of "engaged democracy" people are starting to realize that they can have access and influence by doing things themselves rather than turning to government for solutions.  There is further, no requirement that an organizational component be present.

Government has proven itself incapable of solving virtually any problem in today's modern world and it is up to the self-directed and impassioned American citizen to craft the future of America. George Clooney is doing his part in the societal areas that affect him the most.  He does not choose to try to fix everything just the areas that concern him the most.  That is truly what freedom is and is the real essences of a new definition of the "American Dream" whereby individuals have the right to be involved in societal development.

The old definition of the American Dream which is predicated on "hard work leading to success" is being usurped by a new Dream "that one has the power to craft the society in which they will succeed".  The requirement of having to accept the current roles no longer exists.

"Engaged Democracy" - The Way Forward

Representative democracy is dead.

What needs to evolve is a spirit of "engaged democracy" whereby individuals have the ability to contribute to the democratic process in whatever areas of the public domain that interest them.

Individuals should have the ability to contribute not only input but also in the formulation of legislation.  Expertise exists in volumes in the modern world across America and this brain pool needs to be included in the legislative process so that greater and more effective solutions are reached.  Through "engaged democracy" differing opinions and agendas can be included in the public debate so that the legislation that is reached is broader in consideration than it currently is today.

Non-partisan solutions should be the goal in the "engaged democracy" process so that fair and equitable information is collected and considered with the objective that America moves down a forward-thinking path.  Party politics has lead to way too much emphasis being put on all-or-nothing style legislation that pushes a philosophy, which unfortunately usually comes at the expense of good government.

In today's world of technology and communication, collecting opinion and expertise should be simple so that the social divides are considered and mutually beneficial policies are arrived at.

In the new system of "engaged democracy", the Congress would become a managerial institution designed to oversee the process of developing legislation and would abandon it's role as a legislator itself.  Only in this way can agenda-driven partisanship be left behind such that America can reclaim it's democratic roots.

Health: A Fundamental Freedom

Our health care system has gotten too far out of reach for too many individuals.  Government providing health care is a standard feature of every modern country in the world.

Our nation was founded upon individual freedom and finding your own way, but access to a minimum quality of health needs to be considered a foundation of that freedom.  Freedom has become misinterpreted to mean the ability to pay for health care insurance or medical services.  Health care should not be considered just another commodity with inequitable touch points for those who have financial security and those who do not.  Rather it needs to be a vital part of a strong and powerful America.

A two-tiered system is certainly manageable with both private and public options.  The public options have to be funded by the tax system at this point until a better way is found.  It is just a small contribution by individual citizens to fund an America where every person has access to the medical community.

Proper Usage of Military Forces

The American military has three primary roles:  1) to protect American interests around the world; 2) to assist nationally and internationally in times of natural disaster;  and 3) to intervene in foreign genocidal conflicts and wars of aggression.


The American military can no longer exist as an instrument of American political will unless formally engaged by the ruling government or a treaty organization.  The era of America embracing a "manifest destiny" mindset as rationale for being involved in foreign national development is over.


American intervention should no longer be used even as a threat in the modern world.  Let's face it, we no longer follow through anymore so the threat is rarely a deterrent anyway.


American interests need to be clearly defined as those with business, social or individual components.  Humane and appropriate economic treatment of corporations and citizens that are operating or living within a foreign land need to be adhered too.  If any attempt is made to nationalize businesses, inflict inequitable taxation or operating standards, or inflict personal injury upon individuals then the military has a right to defend it's institutions and citizens.  Intervention however,can only occur when these injuries are incurred outside the legal parameters of the country in which they are are incurred. Americans though, need to be cognizant of the threats inherent wherever they do business and if they choose to enter a specifically dangerous area then they assume that risk as part of their normal freedom of operations.


When natural disasters occur the American military as well as the military units of other countries should be made available in terms of manpower and resources to incur a safe zone within the affected area and to support relief efforts.


Intervention is warranted whenever tyrannical foreign leadership is utilizing genocidal tactics as instruments of control and power.  A prime mandate in the 21st century for the American military is to uphold human rights and protect civilians from persecution by their own government.  The world has to come to realize that the number one offense that any government can inflict on it's citizens is death.  Government has inherently an obligation to create a peaceful environment for it's citizens and orchestrated extermination of any portion of that population will meet with immediate intrusion by military forces.  The style of government is inconsequential.


Intervention by the American military during periods of national uprising or civil disobedience is not warranted at the outset of any conflict.  Civil uprising and governments defending their position is a natural part of nationalistic development and America has no role in disputes of that nature. However, that being said, if conflicts continue with no resolution in sight, then America can be invited to participate by the ruling government.  It is not America's role to pick sides in civil conflicts.  Let's face it, if foreign countries had decided to support the south during the American Civil War then the results may have been very different and our nations sovereignty and right of self-determination would have been severely undermined and we likely would have developed very differently.


Any act of aggressive attack by a foreign country by another nation shall meet with American intervention as well.  War of acquisition is no longer a valid form of conflict in the modern world and has to be opposed by strength.  Historical boundaries are still quite often in conflict and on occasion governments have tried to re-establish historical boundaries.  This is not a valid reason for military action against a neighbor.  The era of extending national boundaries and influence through international territorial expansion is a thing of the past.


In the future, it is is highly probable that wars of acquisition will occur in order to gain access to the world's most valuable natural resources (oil, water and precious metals). When conflicts of this nature arise America has the right to be involved as a means of protecting the assets of foreign countries and establishing a global rule or territory and ownership. America will also have the right to intervention if any valuable resource is being withheld as a means of the foreign country establishing some type of political advantage. The military however, cannot be involved if resources are being sold elsewhere as this would have to be addressed in the private and public sectors.


The bottom-line for the 21st century is that our military has a definitive role that can be utilized in a more specific roles.  The end result will be the ability for America to adopt a more consistent role in the deployment of it's military and one that will be welcome and appreciated when it is utilized. By managing the military in this manner it will give America a favored position in the world as the military becomes seen as a beneficial presence globally rather than an unwelcome intruder.

Precedent...It Doesn't Matter Anymore

Precedent is the quicksand of the American system and it is time to put that outdated concept to bed.

In our modern world, almost every issue has become so complex and ultimately very different from the next in terms of circumstance and context that no single legal, political or moral decision or action can rely on the thinking or actions that preceded it.

In business, the concept of zero-based planning starts with a tangible objective and does not take into consideration a predetermined budget, existing infrastructure or action-plan. One then creates a strategy and a corresponding action plan to fulfill the stated objective. This is the approach that needs to be under-taken moving forward in all areas of modern society.

For example, the most obvious area where precedent dominates is in the criminal world. Let's face it, the circumstances of any given violent crime is different than any other. Even in the simplest of crimes...say a street robbery...the intent, the motivation, the circumstances and the antagonists are very different. Therefore, why would other crimes be utilized in a trial or in a verdict? One can make the argument that perhaps in the sentencing process precedent can be utilized in terms of establishing punishment but in the facts of the case it is irrelevant.

Now, extrapolate this thought into terms of national and global politics, economics, social development, public policy etc. and why then would thinking or methodologies of the past be relevant in the 21st century? World events have to be considered in terms of modern conditions and not some by-gone era. By ignoring precedent the path can become clearer as new factors can be considered on their own merit. For example, dealing with a Muslim component in society has never been part of the American heritage so utilizing zero-based planning allows this fact to be considered whereby precedent has no relevant frame of reference.

Zero-based planning also has the primary benefit of ignoring and by-passing any existing limitations in strategic and action-plan development. An obvious area to highlight where this methodology can be extremely beneficial is in terms of governmental operations whereby political agenda and bureaucracy more often that not supersede effectiveness. By eliminating the necessity to consider political history, previous legislation and bureaucratic road blocks modern and efficient policies and programs can be developed that deliver the objective rather than be watered down to the point that they are virtually meaningless.

Precedent and current institutional conditions are too varied and bulky to the point that the limitations of previous actions prevent virtually any part of society from moving forward. Hence, the US has become stagnant and needs to free itself from it's own self-imposed shackles.