Capitulate: to surrender unconditionally or on stipulated terms; to give up resistance.

             When it comes to surrender, just the thought of it is chilling to a political leader on the campaign trail.  Campaigns are the closest thing to war most operatives and candidates will ever experience and for the majority, they approach it with the same gusto as if their lives were on-the-line—which is essentially true in their world, as success portends a future in the limelight and failure means ending up with a briefcase full of unrealized dreams and little else.  So capitulating on any issue is fraught with the potential of creating a deadly spiral fueled by opponents’ ominous ads.

Surrender: to quit fighting; to stop resisting and pushing against reality.

There is another lens at which to look at surrender beyond the pale of capitulation and that is to quit fighting reality.  There was no more extraordinary example of this phenomenon then President’s Obama’s announcement of his personal support for gay marriage.  Finally, the highest elected official in the country had voiced an opinion that, agree or disagree, most Americans no longer find shocking.  Obama had surrendered.  The question that will play out during this election cycle is to whom? And at what political cost?

For those on the political right, his endorsement of gay marriage is being skewered as a play for political contributions from and increasingly affluent and active constituency in the Democratic Party and an abomination of Christian values.  For those on the left, it is seen as a long overdue recognition of a fundamental civil right currently denied to millions of Americans.  For both ends of the political spectrum it is a capitulation to election year politics—finally something they can agree upon!

Regardless of your political stripes, this issue will continue to rear its ugly head throughout this campaign season.  Candidates up and down the ballot, and in initiatives throughout the country, citizens will be asked to weigh in.  To the chagrin of Christian Conservatives this issue may not be the make-or-break it one of the Presidential race and it could certainly prove to a straw that breaks more than a few congressional campaigns.  The cost will be borne by those who are perceived as having fallen prey to political winds instead of standing for personal values.  Although that is where so many of our political leaders, and indeed the fabric of our political leadership, have worn thin.

What if this was not capitulation, perhaps it was simply surrender?  The immediate inference when an elected official states an evolving opinion or sheds new light on existing position is that he or she has capitulated—or caved into some special interest group and, unfortunately, many times this is accurate.  And if we are ever going to begin mending our tattered system of governance, perhaps discerning the true intention of the official is a more apt approach to assessing the situation.

In this case, his loquacious Vice President, Joe Biden, smoked President Obama out of the Oval Office.  In asserting his support for gay marriage, was the President truly revealing a position shifted, or had he simply surrendered to the reality that for most Americans the issue of gay marriage has ceased to be the lightening rod issue it once was?  Was it capitulation to the gay community or was it finally a relief for him to be able to clearly articulate a long-held, albeit silent belief.  Was he surrendering to politics or was he finally surrendering to himself?

In the humble opinion of this author, President Obama has long believed that gay marriage was not only inevitable that is was a deserved civil right.  The capitulation for him, was in not expressing that view to appease the then-squeamish elements of the Democratic coalition and persuadable independent voters.  Times have changed and more Americans are ready to allow this right to be bestowed to all couples; the winds have shifted rather than the value, the surrender is to the new reality not any particular group.

The challenge for effective political leadership is not in surrendering to the truth of one’s views; it is eliminating the practice of capitulating one’s beliefs for the sake of political expediency.  While it is laudable that President Obama has finally endorsed gay marriage, how much sooner would our country have arrived at this point, if he and other leaders had espoused their real opinion?

In the end, no one is served by capitulation to politics.  True leadership is about having the courage to be oneself and to stand firm in one’s beliefs regardless of the political costs.  If you don’t believe this phenomenon to be accurate, just look at Governor Romney and his extensive record of capitulations to Republican Right.  Years of campaigning may have won him the nomination and it will be the thing that keeps he from the Oval office.

Unfortunately, Americans are left having to select between candidates with the fewest capitulations—hopefully soon, we can vote for one without any.

If someone wants an issue to be front and center in American politics—do something to make Moms mad.   The Obama Administration’s latest front in the battle against obesity, is the regulation of snacks and food that are not the requisite breakfast and lunch.  First up on the firing line is the beloved bake sale.

In an era of dwindling resources for public schools, bake sales are often the lifeblood of parent organizations, interest clubs and students saving for class trips.  While obviously not the bastion of health consciousness, they are capable of brining in serious money for cash-strapped school with some schools reporting they were able to raise up to $50,000. So what is a regulator to do? Address the rapidly rising rates of childhood obesity or anger Moms and students alike with an all out ban?

Unfortunately, like too many issues mired inside the Beltway, this is not an either or situation.  It is, however, one that requires leadership willing to address the real issues instead of dealing with Band-Aid solutions.  So what’s going on here?

As much from a perspective as a Mom as well as a leadership expert, it seems most politicians are unwilling to discuss the fundamental importance of effective parenting in the outcomes for children.  Regulators and advocates try to skirt this issue by addressing touchy subjects with overarching approaches that end up failing everyone.  Blanket approaches are taken to address one issue that ends up causing another—or more.  Preaching to families to eat healthy foods is great and if there is no culture, resources or real-life reference points to support a switch to fruits and vegetables from junk food, it simply isn’t going to happen.  (Moreover, the real issue is what is going on in the lives of these families, that is the parents, that they anesthetize themselves and their kids with food, rather than opting to live healthy, balanced lives.)

So in an effort to address obesity in families that clearly needing broader support than admonitions to eat more greens, the political answer comes in the form of banning a cultural tradition that many enjoy.  Perhaps the Department of Agriculture could consider the following leadership basics of building support and real-life solutions:

·      Create Connections:  No greater network exists than parents of school-age children.  Many would agree with the basic precepts of healthy eating and encouraging that behavior in the schools and no one wants to be told they can’t do something they have always done and enjoyed.  Talk with those who will be impacted by your decision before the news stories hit the stands.

·      Manage the Pace of Change:  While change is fundamental to life, people can only take so much at one time.  Has anyone at the USDA talked to the Department of Education to find out how much money is being cut from schools?  Perhaps a bit snarky, and yet, when a group is already under siege attacking a tradition can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

·      Create Buy-In:  Change doesn’t take place by telling other people what to do, change happens, as people are inspired to make other choices.  By engaging parents and schools in genuine discussions around healthy eating across the spectrum of students’ lives new approaches and workable solutions can more easily be found.

·      Engage Everyone’s Talents and Skills: One of the biggest complaints against federal regulation is the feeling that someone without any connection to a person’s neighborhood or town, is making decisions for them.  If incentives were put in place to encourage local strategies what one school does may look different than another and in the end, a customized approach that creates results is much better than a blanket policy the is the target of ridicule, aspersions and avoidance.

I am all in favor of improving the quality of food our children consume and I would be the first to say a drastic decline in the prevalence of processed foods would serve everyone.  The point of this article is that superficial strategies like banning bake sales serves no one.  For the children that are consuming large quantities of sweet, fattening foods they will get it, if not from a bake sale then somewhere else.  For families that maintain a more balanced diet and few dollars for a plate of cookies is a win-win.

True leadership evolves at the level at which the issue exists.  Each school needs a vibrant, engaged parent body that is willing to examine the situation of their particular school and make appropriate “policies” for each situation.  Perhaps asking for a variety of baked goods that include fruit, whole grains and other more wholesome ingredients is a good start.  For others it may be including fruits and vegetables in their offering and some schools may find other ways of raising money.  By taking leadership out of the hands of those who are living with the issue, we disempower the very people we need to be more engaged with it—the parents.

The solution to the problems we face as a nation will not be found, nor created inside the Beltway.  It is important for each person to engage their leadership in their lives and starting by addressing healthy eating habits is a good—and easy place to do it.  Let’s hope the government encourages leadership and doesn’t squelch it.

Why do we keep re-electing people we don’t believe are doing a good job?

Like any employee who is slacking on the job and escapes the pink slip to return another day to collect a paycheck, we can’t blame the workforce for showing-up with a lackluster work ethic for which we keep paying them.  (This is not to say that many Members are not spending the bulk of their time and effort focused on their job.  It is however, a statement on the lack of focus on producing results for the American people.)  Others point to a system where money, influence and the power to legislate (or not) often leave the average voter totally unempowered during election season, after all we are not making all those negative ads we are just the ones using them as short hand for civic engagement.  Who isn’t impacted by the mudslinging during election season? For most, it is enough to turn them off to even paying attention, let alone engaging in the process.

So if we have people working for us who are not doing what we want and we continue to “hire” them, is it any wonder they keep doing more of the same?  And yes, I did say people working for us, because in a democracy that is exactly the power balance envision by the Founders.  The people are sovereign and those in office serve them—although it seems as if far too many of us have forgotten that simple fact and are allowing poor performers to rule our world.

So the answer to getting the results we want in our country doesn’t rest with those in Congress, it sits firmly in the hands of those who wish to see things change—and who choose to do something about it.  Congress has become an institution defined by its glacial pace of change and resistance to synergistic solutions that integrate the best of what the majority desires; if we want to see chronic societal challenges address than the only way it will come is from forces outside the atrophied power structure willing to develop something new.

Which leads us to the power of the individual and their right and responsibility to participate in the creative process of addressing the things that are most important to them.  Whenever a person decides to try something new, he begins to change his world.  When that person decides to exercise his leadership in service to the community he begins to change the world.  By doing both, not only does the possibilities for greater personal happiness expand there is the satisfaction of making a lasting and sustained contribution to the community.

How does one exercise leadership in the lives?  Here are seven areas where everyone can start leading today:

·      Self: Be a leader unto yourself, own and recognize your power to change your life and the world.

·      Intimates: Who are the three to five people that mean the most to you?  Are you open, honest and compassionate with them?  Do you support them in becoming their best and leading exceptional lives? Do they support you?

·      Close Connections: Who are the people that make-up the fabric of your life? Are you setting an example of what you want to see in the world?  Do you talk about what you want to see or are you living it? Are you inspiring others to be better or do you drag people down with your pessimism and fear?

·      Common Community: Through your interactions with extended family, neighbors and friends there are numerous opportunities to share your talents, skills and passions while supporting their growth and ability to lead.

·      Interest Community: Are you a leader in the groups in which you work and volunteer?  Are you giving your best and working toward greater fulfillment and enjoyment or are you just “getting by”?

·      Geographic Community: Where do you live?  Why?  What you are doing to be an engaged, active contributing member of your community?

·      World Community:  What do you see in the world that you wish were different? What are you doing right here, right now to change it right where you are?

For too long we have looked at leadership at the purview of those in the marbled buildings of town halls, state houses, and the Capitol.  The result of this external focus is painfully clear, we not only dislike the job they are doing, we continue to suffer from the lack of progress toward the goals we hold dear: a robust economy, vibrant health-care system, functional education process, in sum, communities that are healthy.  If we want to create this for ourselves, we must create it by being leaders that reveal our talents and strengths and inspire others to do the same.

The best part is that we don’t have to wait for an election, raise money or give speeches—all that needs to be done is to start living as the leader you already are, being your best, giving your best and actually making the change we all wish to see in the world.

One of the greatest weaknesses, and almost without question at the root of all inglorious downfalls of well-known leaders, is the discomfort they have with who they truly are.  Each person is born with a beautifully unique set of talents, skills and abilities and in our early childhood we bring them into the world unfettered.  Yet early in our childhood we begin receiving messages, primarily from our caregivers, that reflect back what they think and feel about who we are.  From those early impressions we make decisions about who it is safe to be and what we need to hide.  Regardless of a child growing up in an “idyllic” setting or a very challenging one, everyone has to navigate these landmines as children.

Is the authentic self what we do, or is it who we are?  In today’s society most people define themselves by what they do rather than by who they are—what approach are you taking?

This question actually is the fundamental one successful leaders have asked themselves over and over again.  Learning who you are is an ongoing process that opens the doorway to being a leader in your personal life and in your work in the world.  Starting this process begins by looking at your unique gifts and talents, what is special about you, and about what are you passionate?  And by starting on this path of inquiry, often it will bring up just the opposite, doubts about your abilities, uncertainty about what really is important to you and questions about what you really want to accomplish.  Although it is challenging, it is the place to start because only through honest communication and full self-disclosure can you get to the core of your authentic self.

Leaders who never take this step or don’t continue to do so, end up anchoring their actions in who other people tell them they are, which is ultimately a recipe for disaster.  Nowhere is this truer than in political circles.  Elected officials often begin their careers genuinely interested in public service and as they rise through the ranks their notoriety, popularity and power grow creating an ever-changing canvas of how they view themselves.  As the people around them start to view them through the lens of power and fame, elected officials often find themselves caught between the person they think they are, which is often insecure, unintelligent and unloved and the person they are in public, which is often the opposite, so that both visions are of themselves are inaccurate.

This is why it is so important to develop a clear picture of your authentic self and to keep that mirror of self-reflection as clean as possible.  From the earliest decisions each person makes to survive childhood, everyone can benefit by evaluating if those choices to see if they are still useful or if they are standing in the way of fully expressing your power and being the leader in your life that you really are.  For example, a child who felt the only way to win his parents’ approval was to succeed learns to achieve in every arena.  This insatiable drive to win often compels many political leaders into high office.  But if the motivation for that drive is rooted in childhood angst, it invariably leads to reckless behavior.  By understanding that achieving once had its role in childhood family dynamics one can see that that motivation no longer serves as well in adulthood.  By shifting the focus of achievement for its own sake and as a way to win love to a healthier focus on achieving for the sake of bettering one’s community the desperation evaporates and the true humanitarian can come forward.  (For a real life example, reflect on President’s Clinton’s rise to office, his stumble and his second act in his post-presidency.)

By identifying the decisions that defined how you coped with your childhood, one often finds the seeds of current issues as those mechanisms have probably outlived their usefulness.  Now you can make a choice for yourself about the direction you want to take in your life.  By rooting into the authentic self, people begin to see the difference between what he or she has made up and what is real.  Then, and only then, one has a clean slate to move toward self-empowerment and expanded and effective leadership.

No one can take this journey for you.  And for the sake of citizens and political leaders alike, it is time for everyone dust off and take a fresh look in the mirror.

Key Obama advisor David Axelrod revealed his own frustration in his comments on CNN’s State Of The Union, ”I think a lot of Republicans in Congress want to cooperate, know better, but they’re in the thralls of this reign of terror from the far right that has dragged the party to the right.” In other words, there are many people who understand that something needs to be done to curb illegal immigration while making some reasonable accommodations for those individuals who currently reside in the country.

If ever an issue cried out for leadership over dogma, this is it. For the majority of people in this country, they want reasonable immigration laws enforced to provide order and stability, particularly in border communities. However, there are also the humanitarian issues of dealing with people who have faced fear, incarceration and perhaps death in order to make it to this country to enhance the quality of their life and opportunities for their family. For the most part, these illegal immigrants are not criminals, rather those desperate to do better for those they love.

As a country founded by immigrants seeking a better life, we more than anyone else ought to find empathy for all parties in this situation and be able to craft a solution that meets everyone’s needs. Instead of building walls, perhaps we can build communities on both sides of the border so that we not only quell the desire to cross illegally, but even make it a clearer route to a life people on both sides want to lead.

Walls separate people where no other division exists—learning to live by respecting each others’ boundaries and aspirations is the only harmonious way forward.

The simple eloquence of a few words is often the most powerful way to describe a complex situation. As I reflected on the recent torrent of stories about the “war on women,” this quote came to mind, not because it is the antithesis of conservatives’ views, and increasingly their legislative bills, rather because it goes straight to the heart of what they most fear—a shift away the almighty dollar as the demarcation of accomplishment to a more balanced perspective on what constitutes success.

The early 20th Century move to keep women from vibrant contribution outside the home created a host of challenges, namely the subordination of women and a lack of purpose beyond meeting the needs of spouse and children. During the 1970’s women entered the modern workforce in large numbers and their now ubiquitous presence has demonstrated that they can perform on par with men in nearly every sector of society. Despite their success in matching workplace performance, women find themselves besieged over reproductive issues, underpaid for equal work and stretched thin balancing the demands of home life and professional advancement—where does it all end?

This is where Bender’s quote comes in—and with it the question, how many women, or people for that matter, are truly living the life they want versus chasing a dream someone told them was important? The first wave of women entering the workforce are now at the pinnacle of their “power,” ensconced in the Halls of Congress, occupying corner offices and in top positions within academia, media and entertainment, accomplishments that were only dreams when these women hit the ground they would soon be breaking. They had to prove they could do it because no woman before them had done it. Women now in the earlier stages of their career have the luxury of asking, “do we still want to be one of the boys?”

And this is the question that scares the conservative end of the spectrum. Why? Wouldn’t they like women to return to the home “where they belong?” Yes, but only so long as it keeps them economically hungry to consume and to trade away free time to earn money for that appetite. What most business people want is to keep people wanting more money to buy more things, rather than creating balanced lives where joy, satisfaction and happiness are equally valued with revenue generation.

It is not difficult for women to envision a life espoused by famed author David McCullough; “Real success is finding your lifework in the work that you love.” In caring for children, family members and the community woman quickly discover the importance of meaning in their lives. Paychecks are important and so too is significant contribution based on one’s talents, skills and passion. Without attention to one’s own happiness and the capacity to share it with others, life’s pleasures quickly dim. Creating balance between time at work and home is essential and not limited to women—be it for family, recreation or hobby everyone is higher-functioning when they are happy and fulfilled in the workplace.

Work life balance questions inevitably come up whenever I talk about effective leadership, because so many people believe that success only comes through sacrifice to career and to biding one’s time until they have “achieved” the position and/or income that will provide it for them. The truth, however, is that success comes first through making a meaningful contribution that one enjoys; the accolades and abundance follow. When it comes to this latest flare-up of the War on Women, is the focus on revoking reproduction rights only a way to assert control over women’s bodies, or does it also help deflect attention from the importance of balance as a key factor of success. After all, in constantly fighting these battles women feel good that they even have a choice about pursuing job and family and will therefore be less ambitious in asserting their desire to integrate both into a successful life.

So many of the major issues that have plagued the country during the past few years have unfettered love of money at their root. That mindset permeates much of society and is an irritant for many women who see value in both prosperity and poise. Because the economic playing field favors men, in opportunity and remuneration, the impetus for them to institute a change of focus is nominal.

If woman want the benefits of a balanced life to permeate our society, they will have to be the ones to take the lead. This will require women to develop life and work that best meets their needs while clearing the path for others to follow. By creating a new definition of success women will show that spending time to make money to buy stuff no one has time to use is crazy. And if Pearl Buck is correct, “to find joy in work is to discover the fountain of youth,” they may also save themselves some money on skincare in the process!

Kathleen Schafer is the Founder and President of Leadership Connection, through which she has trained individuals and organizations–particularly women and other underrepresented groups–to be effective leaders. Schafer built the political leadership curriculum, still in use, at The George Washington University School of Political Management and is the author of Living The Leadership Choice.

The latest dust up occurred as democratic operative Hillary Rosen  correctly pointed out the difference between an affluent stay-at-home mom in Ann Romney and the more ubiquitous every-woman, struggling to make ends meet while raising her children. Without question motherhood and career are equally important and demanding. Women, in the best of circumstances, should be able to choose the path best-suited for their lives no differently than a man selecting a career that best meets the needs of his family.

Irrespective of this truth, election season brings out the desire to prove that one candidate or party is better suited to meet women’s needs over the other, while the reality that lurks behind the aggressive chest-thumping is that neither party, and really very few candidates overall, are sincerely willing to be the leaders most women would like to see in elective office.

If you listen to Ann Romney and the Republicans it is economic issues that matter to women.  Perhaps true, except not in the way most on the right would feel comfortable supporting. For example:

-       In a recent survey conducted by Mom Central Consulting, moms, regardless of their age, said they would forego a larger paycheck to spend more time with their children.  For these women, equal pay for equal work, affordable housing, health care and quality education would help them maximize their earnings while reducing the pressure to earn more simply to make ends meet allowing them to be more present in their children’s lives.

 

-       The survey also highlighted that most moms would prefer to stay home rather than forging ahead in their career path.  Too many women today don’t have the choice to be full-time moms when even government programs like Social Security discriminate against women working in the home.  Former New York Times financial reporter Ann Crittenden, in her best-selling book The Price of Motherhood, expertly details numerous ways women are economically discriminated against when they step out of the workforce to raise children, including the oft unremarked upon fact that for each year a women does not earn an income it reduces her Social Security payment upon retirement.

Fortunately, Ann Romney will not have to worry about her finances as she ages, but for most women this is simply not the case. In addition to juggling the various demands on the home front, women must also contribute to the household cash flow and prepare for a future where earnings diminish with their age, years out of the workforce and changes in martial status.  For those that genuinely care about “women’s issues” figuring out what they really want isn’t difficult.

Let’s start with the basics:

·      Equal pay and equal opportunity:  The glass ceiling has certainly been raised in recent years as entry level positions tend to reveal a level playing field.  The situation becomes much more complicated as women age and have families—women want policies, many of which are detailed in Ms. Crittenden’s book, that provide a level economic playing field throughout their life cycle, so that women can effectively balance work and motherhood.

·      Quality, affordable healthcare for everyone:  Not only as recipients, women are the main caregivers for sick family members at both ends of the lifecycle.  As healthcare becomes costly, women disproportionately are the ones caring for family members in addition to tending to their own responsibilities. As a 2009 study conducted by AARP and the National Caregiving Alliance found, the typical family caregiver is a 49-year-old woman caring for her widowed 69-year-old mother who does not live with her. She is married and employed. Approximately 66% of family caregivers are women. More than 37% have children or grandchildren under 18 years old living with them.

·      Educational Excellence:  Despite the pabulum spewed by many policy makers, any Mom who has recently spent even a few hours at a public school can see that unending budget cuts coupled with out-of-control mandates has created a situation where less and less learning is going on inside the classroom, putting pressure on women to make-up the shortfall at home.  With well-directed resources and empowered educators we can create true partnerships between parents and teachers instead of the draining and often adversarial relationship women find themselves in trying to ensure the best opportunities for their kids while “fighting” a system that often discriminates against working moms.  As numerous studies summarized by the Michigan Department of Education note, teachers often think that low-income parents and single parents will not or cannot spend as much time helping their children at home as do middle- class parents with more education and leisure time, creating pressure on the families that need it the least.

I believe Ann Romney worked hard raising five boys, and doing it with the support of a wealthy, successful husband was a true blessing for her and her family.   For women who do not share this reality it would be wonderful if she can help persuade her husband and the rest of the Republican Party to take these issues seriously and to make necessary changes.

In addition, it would be a step in the “right” direction if President Obama and his fellow Democrats did more than simply hold these values in their hip pocket, ready to use at the drop of the campaign hat.  I have no doubt that most Democrats completely agree that economic equality, affordable assessable health care and quality education are the cornerstones of their values and yet there is little to show in the past four years to prove this contention. As the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom said, it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

When candidates are serious about truly earning women’s vote they will answer the question why we always have enough money for war and we are forever cutting spending on education, health care and community services?  Once a candidate has actually done something about this inequity, is when women will truly have made a difference in an election.

Kathleen Schafer is the founder and president of Leadership Connection and the author of Living The Leadership Choice.

While I completely conquer with the assessment by Auerback and Wray that health insurance is not synonymous with health care and that a single-payer system, while politically untenable is the more economically sound approach, at its core the health care dispute is at the place where America is stuck on many policy fronts. That is, there is an unresolved tension between what we want for ourselves as individuals and what we want for our community and country.

Some indisputable facts:

• Everyone consumes health care.
• No one knows if they will require a little or a great deal of care or when they will need it.
• When someone needs care they want to get it right away.
• As a society, we have already agreed that anyone who needs care will receive it if they get themselves to an Emergency Room.
• Most people always assume that “bad things” happen to other people until they are the ones faced with chronic illness or a catastrophic accident.
• Untreated sick people can become a threat to public health.
• For most services where there are free riders and when individual access has both personal and community implications (e.g. it is impossible to have an army that only defends a certain portion of the population) the government is the provider because it is the entity that best balances the interests of personal and public without a profit motive.

From the left and the right, health care is in a ditch because of two key factors: on the right the vitriol has become so heated around the interests of the individual that they have dismissed all sense of connection and the inevitable consequence of one person’s behavior on another; and on the left, lack of inspired leadership in government has created a bureaucracy of mind-numbing regulations that now hinder one of its central functions of balancing personal and communal needs in a vibrant and responsive way. Take any issue, education, environment, economy they are all stuck because we have polarized the choices to such extremes that for the bulk of Americans neither path is palatable.

So what does all this have to do with the lottery? It is a fascinating juxtaposition of these issues. As the jackpot grew, millions of Americans were willing to shell out one to hundreds of dollars for the minuscule chance to become a mega-millionaire. Contribution to the lottery was justified because there was the possibility that they could be the one who would win it all. No one forced them; in fact, most people were positively giddy about the opportunity of winning and the chance to free themselves of ever having another financial concern. Yet, the suggestion that everyone would pay into a system that would guarantee health care for all who need it, in hopes that it would never be them, seems to be akin to sidling up to the devil himself. Why is it so easy to open our pocketbooks for the slim chance to be a millionaire and yet we are revolted by the notion of contributing to health care for those who may need more of it than they can afford—including ourselves?

Which brings us to an important insight into our national psyche, and perhaps that of most human beings, we don’t like to be told what to do and we don’t like to feel as if we don’t have a choice. The Affordable Health Care Law has become the punching bag of the right over this issue alone. Any time someone unfurls the banner of “government good” the right goes after it like a dog with a bone.

So how does health care become like the lottery, where people actually want to participate? In a word—leadership.

While the intricacies of how to accomplish this cannot be detailed in a single article, the strategy of getting there is straightforward. Leadership is about helping people reconcile their conflicting beliefs so that individual values are aligned and are shared throughout communities. Because elected officials fear this challenging conversation, they would rather deal with the details of who pays for what, when and how rather than working with the public to get to a point where everyone can see the benefits, personally and societally of a well-functioning health care system.

Ask anyone and they will be able to come up with a list of obvious ways to improve health care. It is a system where no one, other than the insurance executives and their shareholders, are satisfied. Before we can get to the concrete work of improving the quality of what is offered, it is important to come to a fundamental understanding and agreement to the facts listed at the beginning of this article. Without an agreement around the basics and a reconciliation of the desire to “get government out of my life” while wanting the benefits of living in a well-functioning society we will never get anywhere.

Regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in June to uphold the health care law or not, we will still be a long way from true change—and with a good majority of the country enraged by the pronouncement. Without a leader willing to engage in a substantive dialogue our health care system will continue to deteriorate.

Perhaps the best we can do is to keep buying those lottery tickets hoping we are the lucky winner who needn’t every worry about health care costs. Or maybe we can feel good about building a system where everyone contributes what they can in hopes they will never need it and knowing it will be there if they do. Now that’s a lottery where everyone wins.

It starts when they are learning to walk and we gasp when they take their first big spill.  Or they come home crying that they were excluded from their friends in the lunchroom or chosen last to be on the team.  For most children the reality of disappointments only becomes more acute:  they are not asked to the prom or kicked off the basketball team because of bad grades, the devastation of the first broken heart and the disappointment of not getting into the college of their choice are all realities for our kids.  Because these disappointments are so reminiscent of our own, we long to staunch our own hurt by trying to make-up or avoid it with our offspring.

Driving by a desire to help them “feel better” we run to the rescue guiding them around situations and circumstances so that they won’t fall, fail, or feel bad.  In fact, I recognized this desire doesn’t end even when our kids are married as I recently found myself attempting to steer my adult son out of what I deemed to be a destructive marriage when it was long overdue for him to maneuver in the relationship in whatever way HE wanted to do it.

In the endless process of learning and teaching, I realized that while coaching my clients to allow their kids to “fail” and to negotiate out of the situation on their own, here I was falling prey to the overwhelming desire to once again, keep my child from hurting, when in fact it was only through the pain that he was going to discover his true strength.

No one WANTS to see our child hurting and we going overboard in not allowing them to experience discomfort, pain, heartbreak and then ultimately figuring their own way out from under and into their own solutions.  Theoretically we know this is a better way to be, but how do we let go of trying to control and manage our children out of becoming responsible, problem solving, self-assured adults?

There is a critical distinction between guidance and controlling and so often we collapse those distinctions and they get muddled up in our minds.  There is no question that as infants, toddlers, adolescents and young people that supportive guidance and teaching core values is our job.  It is an important time when they are searching for their independence—even if we know from our own experience that they are headed for disaster!  All one needs to do is to remember back to our youth and the longing for our independence from our parents to understand that our children now feel the same. The challenge is to be able to tell the difference between those issues when we need to jump in and the issues they must, in order to grow, figure out for themselves.

Life most of us, when left to our own devices we were able to figure things out and we did a fairly good job.  Now we must allow our children to have their own experience, even if it entails pain and failure, so they can be the stronger for it,  can learn how to deal with difficulties in the future and not be afraid to confront the challenges that are in front of them.  This is living the leadership choice as adult and allowing one’s children to do the same—without knowing who we truly are, everything in life becomes an even greater challenge.

Sometimes it feels like watching a train wreck about to occur and not be able to do a thing about it.  Although often the result, when all is cleared off the track,  is that  great character is developed and we can enjoy the surprises, and successes, that our responsible children experience as a result of their newfound resilience.