Former Senator, New York Knick basketball player, and Olympic athlete Bill Bradley offers his substantial insights into the workings of government and how, by focusing on cooperation and the good of the country instead of party, we can all do better. And by “we” he means all of us – the politicians, the media, and the American people. We are all in this together and only by working together can we find resolutions to all of the challenges that face us here in America.
But accomplishing this won’t be easy. Bradley begins by reminding us that even though politicians all love this country, it is easy for the “members of the club” to become absorbed into the cynicism that dominates Washington DC today. The “duopoly” of the two parties cater to the extremes and the media play along because it is easier – and more profitable – to turn gossip into news than to report honest policy discussions. And the people – you and me – force politicians into playing the game at either end of the spectrum where compromise is seen as treachery, and then turn around and voice our perpetual dissatisfaction because politicians are dancing in the corners in which we have painted them.
Still, Bradley notes that “the sad irony is that many members of the club may be idealists underneath,” and like most Americans living their daily lives, continue to believe in the country’s fundamental health and promise for the future. In the chapter, “Breaking the Logjam,” Bradley offers some concrete proposals to encourage economic growth and job creation in the immediate, the proximate, and the long-term. He dispels some of the common myths (e.g., that the wealthy are “job creators”) and offers solutions that will improve the employment picture now while positioning us to lead the world in the future. His ideas are too numerous to list here, but well worth the time spent reading the book. One quote, though perhaps oversimplified, summarizes his philosophy:
“I cannot emphasize enough the requirement of balance: asking something from everyone. Democrats want the rich to bear the burden; Republicans want primarily the poor to sacrifice. Both political parties champion the middle class and neither asks anything significant of it in this crisis. A true solution cannot give the middle class a pass.”
In short, politicians need to put country ahead of re-election. They need to be honest with us as citizens. And we need to be honest with them – and with ourselves.
In “Celebrating Selflessness,” Bradley provides the most emotionally inspirational chapter of the book. In it he relates stories that contradict the assumption by both parties that human beings are basically selfish. Instead, he says, most people may actually prefer to be unselfish if given the chance by politicians and the media. In “Raising All Boats,” Bradley discusses the major source of disheartenment – that the system is rigged to give all the benefits to the very wealthy while the middle class bears the brunt of the burden. “The elevator is no longer working,” he quotes, meaning that the middle class and the working poor can no longer count on getting ahead by working hard and being honest. This dissatisfaction becomes fertile ground for demagoguery from both parties.
In the remaining chapters Bradley cites such disparate leaders as Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, and Eisenhower as recognizing the critical role of government and how “free markets” dominated during times of robber-barons, monopolies, and “too big to fail.” Further, he addresses our long-standing ambivalence about our role in foreign affairs and how our forthcoming challenges with China stem not from military prowess but from economic domination. In short, while America bickers amongst itself and accomplishes little, China moves its own future forward, which more and more intertwines with the future of the world.
Bradley argues that we need both “collective caring” and “personal responsibility” to move forward. In his final chapter, “The Path to Renewal,” he proposes that solutions should include taxing labor less and things more, adoption of a massive infrastructure program, investments in research, embracing talented immigrants while educating our own citizens for a lifetime in a world of constant change, reduction of our structural budget deficit, and leading the world “by example.”
There is so much more in this relatively short book and I strongly encourage anyone interested in the future of America to read it.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 93
Mine might be a teensy bit longer than the recommended. :)
Did you hear who is interviewing Bradley?
I haven't heard who will be interviewing him but I'm sure it will be fascinating.
Thanks for the recommendation.
So you are part of a non-fiction reading group, eh? I'll keep that in mind. :)
Come on by...
Thanks for the recommendation.
I believe the date for his discussion will be July 19th but the time was still to be set.
Come on by...
My question is what Bill proposes on climate change. As you know, I advocate local feebates, i.e. fees imposed on polluting products, with revenues from those fees are spent on local rebates on clean products.
This could be in line with Bill's suggestion of taxing labor less and things more, Bill's proposed infrastructure program, etc. I just read that California's High Speed Rail program has been approved, which could be an example of this, alongside support for electric vehicles, clean energy programs, etc.
I look forward to see Bill's comments on this point.
Cheers, Sam Carana
Thanks for your always insightful comments...and for the recommendation.
Come on by...
Bill, what do you propose on climate change? I saw your suggestion to tax labor less and things more, and I saw some of your comments on infrastructure programs. As you will know, California's High Speed Rail (HSR) program has been approved, which could be an example of a welcome infrastructure upgrade, alongside support for electric vehicles (EVs), clean energy programs, etc.
In case you or anyone else wonders, I see HSR and EVs as important parts of a larger comprehensive plan of action on climate change, and I believe that the most effective way to achieve improvement is through local feebates, i.e. combinations of fees and rebates, in particular fees imposed on specific polluting products, with revenues from those fees each time earmarked for local support of corresponding clean products, preferably through rebates.
I am not sure whether you if you want any reaction on the review, a discussion on the book (I have not read and your review does not encourage me to read it because of several of the points you bring out), or on points you make.
What I know of Mr. Bradley tells how he is and has been an exemplary citizen. I have talked to a few that knew him in his youth and how he was about the team and others to the point of disregarding results, what I have seen of his political career was that of an extremely honourable man, one that was not brought down by the system. I have heard nothing about his post political life that would suggest anything but a person of high standards and caring for our country and its people.
I thank you for the review and letting me know about it.
He brings that same integrity to the suggestions he makes in this book. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with all of his views. But that is the point. People have different views on how to address the issues we face. The key is to address those issues honestly and with the understanding that others may have valid points.
A concern I have with Mr. Bradley's appraoch is he starts with equality of results, all must sactrifice. That creates a barrier to the best solution for it puts a requirement that may not be overcome. once you know what your purpose is then we should listen for what will best achieve that purpose and having everyone sacrifice similarly may not be possible. For each person see their own sacrifice differently than others.
Have you ever tested your willingness to honestly understand others points of view and accept thme as valid?
That's reasonable. Bradley notes that the current political climate of non-compromise and party-first would be found grossly disturbing by our Founders and by all major players that have shaped this country.
As I say no requirements going in such as that everyone has to have equal sacrifice, fair sacrifice, measurable sacrifice, justifiable sacrifice, etc. If any of these are even talked about then failure is a foregone conclusion.
No, it doesn't. It implies both sides move towards a reasonable solution. Likely neither side will get all of what it wants, just as neither side would get everything it doesn't want.
Compromise is about consessions, and when they are made you give up ownership. Better to start with a blank page that all are working on so there is no need for compromise simply coming up with the best solution.
Compromise is viable only when there is a written document that can be arbitrated. Otherwise there will always be conflict and competition. When there is compromise each side most admit to losing and winning and when that happens common ownership does not exist.
What value is there when neither side gets what they want? Why not have them develop the plan of action together from the start so all own the solution and noone has had to give up anything?
The book is about what Bradley proposes for solutions.
Compromise is about consessions, and when they are made you give up ownership.
No. You don't give up ownership unless you renege on the responsibility that led you to propose your preferred solution in the first place.
Compromise is viable only when there is a written document that can be arbitrated.
No, people compromise all the time without written documents. It's called integrity.
What value is there when neither side gets what they want?
First off, that isn't what I said. Please don't make things up and attribute them to me.
Second, the "all mine or nothing" attitude is exactly what Bradley notes as being destructive to our country.
There are challenges to face and different views on how to address those challenges. Honest politicians, media, and citizens focus on finding solutions to those challenges, not on "getting theirs and screw everyone else."
"You don't give up ownership", if you don't give up ownership of your orginal postion when entering a compromise you will never own the compromise and the change required for success, so the compromise will never succeed.
"people compromise all the time without written documents." I am hard pressed to find those examples in today's poltical environment.
"Please don't make things up and attribute them to me." unless I quote what another is saying I take full responsibility for what I say whether it is describe how I interpret waht is said or I offer my view on the topic at hand. In this case I am simply asking is if a position is taken and then has to be given up in compromise how does the person gain, and in politics how do they show they won?
"Honest politicians, media, and citizens focus on finding solutions to those challenges," Finding a solution is not cobbling bits an pieces of others positions, it is weaving ideas and actions in effective means to achieve a change. Compromise is based on negociation by each side to to get what they want most. 'Scientiists' don't negociate whether Higgs Boson exists or not, they decide the problem is to develop the means and methods to prove or disprove it. They start with a blank page and then start talking about what it will take to find it and then they discuss what is available and what needs to be created to look for it.
The only time I have seen compromise used is in negociation not in problem solving.
Pick one of your own passions on a political issue, test yourself, define the problem and consider how it would be solved through compromise with those who take an opposing view. Who you have ownership of the compromise and impart the same passion to it as you have for your current position? Would you feel you have won or lost on each of the points that became part of the compromise? Do you feel it would have the best chance, not a better one, not the most effective one, to solve the problem?
If you would have met with those who taking opposing position before 'battlelines' were drawn do you think there would be a different and even possibly better approach than what would come out of a compromise? Do believe there even can be a comrpomise on it today?
I am hard pressed to see compromise as a means to an effective solution, much better to start with a page that has the problem describe at the top and the rest blank to be filled in by a diverse set of ideas.
Of course.
if you don't give up ownership of your orginal postion when entering a compromise you will never own the compromise and the change required for success, so the compromise will never succeed.
That doesn't make any sense. You seem to have decided that "a position" is the goal. Bradley reminds us that the goal is the end result for which we have proposed our particular method of arriving at, not the method itself. That is, the "position" is only one way of getting to the ultimate goal. You don't sacrifice the goal because you arrived there differently. That is exactly the kind of short-sighted thinking that has resulted in the current ideological logjam.
I am hard pressed to see compromise as a means to an effective solution, much better to start with a page that has the problem describe at the top and the rest blank to be filled in by a diverse set of ideas.
As usual you have veered off onto some tangent. If you would like more information than please read the book. Chasing your own straw men around in circles is counterproductive when you could simply read the book and discuss based on actual points Bradley makes in it.
"You seem to have decided that "a position" is the goal." that has been my personal experience, that is what I see in the national, state, and even local politics. I need an example of where compomise has been used that people didn't go into the discussion not owning their position and then coming out with a compromise where they talked more about how they were able to held their position.
I apologize for the tangent, I obviously have no valid points to consider.
I am willing to create a 'strawman' when noone else will, for whether it is a compromise or a problem to be solved it usually easier to get people engaged in open discussion when they have something beat upon or reshape. Oh, and I never expect the 'strawman' to survive, it is simply a catalyst for discussion.
Huh? We're not talking about the physical book; we're talking about the ideas and proposals communicated by the book.
The concept of a 'book' is not for'compromise' it is written to present a postion, describes the work and thinking to that point in time. Books are rewritten, revised, and alternative ideas are offered in new books, but the 'book' is fixed and not to be compromised. One of the reason for copyright is to prevent others from altering it, that does not sound like compromise.
I can't over state how important I think it is for people to commit their thinking to print so others can read and think about the ideas offered. For surely without their making the effort and taking the risk progress would not be made. To think that someone wrote it for others to tinker (compromise is about altering) with it, why would they put their name to it, why would they put it into hard copy, why would they copyright it?
Huh?
And the goal of balancing the budget for the good of the American people was accomplished.
I wonder if the each brought a plan to compromise on or if they started with a blank page and a purpose of balancing the budget. If there was compromise, who gave up what? If it were them working from a blank page, was it more of each of them offering ideas, discussing those ideas, modiftying those ideas, when they were in agreement they captured the final idea. It is back to what is compromise and what is a team creating a solution they all contributed to. If any of them can identify what they had gotten included then it was compromise, and they are idenfitying what they had started with and kept then they are describing how they won. However, if they say that each of them contrinuted to the final idea and can't identify what was their idea then they are part of the team and own the solution with all the others, no winning/losing.
I hope you don;t believe that simply because two were Republicans and two were Democrats that they in anyway have divergent views on the way government should approach the spending of tax payers dollars.
I wrote: Each got something in the negotiation - their primary objectives. The other details were filled in by compromising on smaller points with the final goal in mind. None got everything they wanted; all were happy with the outcome.
If there was compromise, who gave up what?
He provides additional detail in the book, though obviously he didn't give every detail since they wouldn't be relevant to the topic of the book.
I hope you don;t believe that simply because two were Republicans and two were Democrats that they in anyway have divergent views on the way government should approach the spending of tax payers dollars.
Feel free to look up their records and backgrounds. I'm sure all of them have a Wiki page since each is extremely well known for their service in the Senate.
I struggle with a compromise between peoples with opposing agendas being able to provide a better plan of action than people would who started with a 'blank page' and work together to develop an action plan for the same problem.
My problem is with the idea that people with opposing agendas can/will deliver a better solution than a team of people with diverse view starting with a 'blank page'.
A simple test; do you think a group of 'denialists' and 'greenies' would compromise and provide a more effective environmental regulation than a team of people (with the same distribution of philosphies) writing a totally new regulation addressing the same issues?
It means they were able to find a way to balance the budget by 2020 after only three days of negotiation.
I struggle with a compromise between peoples with opposing agendas being able to provide a better plan of action than people would who started with a 'blank page' and work together to develop an action plan for the same problem.
You can't start with a blank page unless there is no government already in existence, no people already in existence, no budget already in existence. In other words, it would be not real. And the purpose of being not real would be?
My problem is with the idea that people with opposing agendas can/will deliver a better solution than a team of people with diverse view starting with a 'blank page'.
They weren't figuring out how to create the Universe from a vacuum. They were trying to balance the budget by 2020.
A simple test; do you think a group of 'denialists' and 'greenies' would compromise and provide a more effective environmental regulation than a team of people (with the same distribution of philosphies) writing a totally new regulation addressing the same issues?
They were trying to balance the budget by 2020. What "regulation" are you talking about?
Please refresh your memory about the topic of this post.
"They were trying to balance the budget by 2020." If we are to use the sterotypical positons of the two parties, spend your way into prosperity versus save your way into prosperity, tax and spend vs cut spending/cut taxes. Those are opposite agendas and if the gang of 4 didn't enter with that as part of their considerations for the 'compromise' then they was simply involved in a mental excercise. They may not have been creating the universe but they were working on a problem much more difficult than sending a rocket to the moon.
"They were trying to balance the budget by 2020. What "regulation" are you talking about?" a simple analogy for looking at what 'compromise' would involve and how starting with a 'blank page' would work.
"Please refresh your memory about the topic of this post." "I am not sure whether you if you want any reaction on the review, a discussion on the book ...or on points you make. " I thought you/the book was making a point about 'compromise' and I have been offering my view on the difficulties in using 'compromise' vs a team with a 'blank page' approach.
I only offer this as to open up the possibility of how to look at solving problems rather then simply 'kicking the can don the road'. I have been involved in using both approaches and every time one method has solve problems and the other simply help negociations to be completed.
Come on by...
Thank you for the invitation, I have just read it and gone to the site. I am too late.
You created and excellent opportunity for access to Mr. Bradley, I am sorry I missed it.
Thank you again, I hope you can create such future opportunites with other authors and noted people.
We can succeed only by concert. It is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.
Thanks for the recommendation, Granny.
I'm going out in about a half hour, and I'll be stopping by my library to see if I can take it out.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Come on by...
It's up to us.
1) the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which set the stage for the disaster;
2) the failure to regulate derivatives, which allowed investment firms to multiply risk to the public while shielding their own profits;
3) the loosening of regulations by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which started under Newt Gingrich's Republican led House and blossomed under Bush's "ownership society" and resulted in loans being made easy to get for people could not afford them;
4) the increase in leverage, which began under the Republican Congress and GW Bush regimes in 2004 and allowed financial institutions to borrow up to 40 times their capital (4x what it was previously), thus creating "too big to fail;" and
5) the Federal Reserve's demurral, in which the Fed under Greenspan offered fuel to the fire by keeping interest rates near zero, thus encouraging financial recklessness.
The only chance to salvage any economy for the 99% of us is to keep Obama in the White House, keep a Democratic majority in the Senate, and ideally (though no likely) get back a Democratic majority in the House. If that can happen it will keep the balance of power close and Bradley's ideas can be debated. Otherwise the 1% will once again own the country and the economy while the rest of us our struggling to find jobs.
Do you recognize the existence of recurring phenomena known as the "business cycle?" Or do you just think that this boom-crisis-recession process was independent of such institutional phenomena?
If you admit to the existence of recurring, cyclical phenomena of booms, busts and recessions, then surely you'll admit that such things as the "deregulation" of financial institutions which began in the 90's can't explain the recurrence of prior cycles. Do you think that whatever systemic problems that account for those prior cycles might have also played a decisive role in the present boom-crisis-recession cycle?
Are you familiar with the rival explanations of cyclical phenomena? Do you subscribe to the Keynesian theory of the business cycle; or any theoretical explanation?
Are you familiar with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory? Are you familiar with any of the works of Hayek on the subject, which were the basis of his Nobel Memorial Prize?
Do you have any specific objections to the ABCT? If not, then do you really believe that arbitrary price-fixing of interest rates is unique among price control interventions in being the only kind to not bring about inevitable undesirable consequences?
Do you really believe that expansion of credit beyond the real supply of genuine savings to underwrite it can really foster genuine, sustainable economic growth?
If so, then do you also believe that we could enrich the peoples of destitute third-world nations by dumping green pieces of paper with portraits of dead U.S. presidents on them from out of a helicopter?
Same principle; why should it be true for the former and not the latter?
Do you recognize the first sentence of my comment? The one that starts:
"Bradley identifies five public policy mistakes that led to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, which resulted from the interplay of human greed and bad government policy."
That part (i.e., "Bradley identifies"), along with the fact that this is a book review of Bradley's book "We Can All Do Better," should have tipped you off that the five items listed were proposed by Bill Bradley, the author of the book being reviewed.
But feel free to ask Bill Bradley, an 18-year Senator and Rhodes Scholar, whether he "recognizes the importance," or is "familiar with" the points you note in your questions. You're in luck, Bill Bradley will join Gather for a live discussion this Thursday from 1-2 pm ET. You can ask him directly.
I'm sure we'll see you on that post.
I don't know how viable some of his suggestions are, but several I find rock solid and would implement immediately in particular the
1) the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which set the stage for the disaster;
It made me realize we need Obama in office for another round and/or perhaps start supporting the new third party:).
I agree with you that some of his suggestions may not be politically viable, especially in the current political climate. That climate is exactly what he argues is the problem. In particular the tea party intransigence that has made it impossible for our elected officials to put any serious effort into solving our challenges. Instead these officials must play to the extremist base and, heaven forbid, not even be caught talking to "the other side" lest they be charged with treason to the party.
As Bradley reminds us, this isn't about doing what is right for the party, it is about doing what is right for the country.
Bradley's passion for his country is obvious and genuine and if he can ignite that spark in others, then we may well all have a chance.
I was considering playing up that 40% of the mothers in this country are unwed and that they are the ones most in need of education along with his quote that being born poor will truly mean you do not have a chance at the American Dream any longer.
It's something all politicians mention as a statistic when it's convenient, but no one is really inclined to give those mothers a hand up - which means their children slip into our new sub class, barely surviving on the fringes of society.
The human factor is something I have only heard Bill Bradley speak about.
Mostly the tea party is funded by lobbyists. The Koch brothers basically started the tea party through their AFP lobbying arm, along with former majority leader and now lobbyist Dick Armey through his FreedomWorks lobbying arm (which was in itself a spinoff from the Koch-owned empire).
Here's a quick summary.
And here is a quick debunking of the myths the tea party tells itself.
Of course, the tea party also includes lots of bigots, birthers, and buffoons.
Bradley's passion for his country is obvious and genuine and if he can ignite that spark in others, then we may well all have a chance.
Bradley was always one of those low-key, wonkish, thinkers. Which means he wasn't out there saying stupid things that make ratings for media networks. As you noted in your review and above, not all his ideas may be marketable, but he does have ideas. That is something that seems to be verboten in the US of A right now.
The human factor is something I have only heard Bill Bradley speak about.
There are others, including President Obama, but they seem to get drowned out by the Donald Trumps of the world. Apparently bigotry is good for ratings.
That is a sad commentary on the state of this nation.
And thanks also for the recommendation.
Note the above - There will be an open discussion today @ 3pm ET to further discuss Bill Bradley's book. Please join the discussion. If you can make it at 3 pm ET, then feel free to post now or after the discussion.
Note that Bill Bradley himself will join Gather next Thursday, July 19th between 1-2 pm ET to discuss his book Live!
Agreed.
BTW, I'm sure you wouldn't like some of Bradley's ideas but then take heart in knowing that a lot of liberals wouldn't like some of his ideas either.
I'm looking forward to his participation on the 19th.
Thanks for the recommendation.
Come on by...
And in case you missed it, for a great discussion of Bill Bradley's book "We Can All Do Better" you can go to this Gather post led by Erik Edson.
Check out the article here - comments will be open to the public at 1 pm Thursday.
Come on by...
Nicely done, David.