One thing which comes to mind, when considering just how bad things have gotten in this country and how we got there - and what that says about the future - is that the people in power didn't get there all by themselves. What happened Monday is a case in point: as bad as it is for Paulson to be assuming the role of economic tyrant, not one of the 9 leaders of the country's largest banks called him on it. No one stood up and said,"NO".
Here, truly, is a classic example of the sanction of the victim.
What would have happened on Monday if one of those men had stood up and said "NO"?
Warm Fuzzy Idea, or Troublesome Tribble?
-
At *Ask a Manager*, Alison Green tackled a question about something that
sounded like an innocuous way to boost morale, but in fact achieved the
opposite e...
9 hours ago
Posts
> ". . . not one of the 9 leaders of the country's largest banks called him on it. No one stood up and said,"NO"."
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, dramatically saying "no" requires not only having a principled position on an issue, but also being in the right place at the right time, a place and time where gentlemanly aggression is being perpetrated. That means being on one's own home-ground, which is where one works--the place where one carries out one's central purpose in life.
That is why I support in-line activism as being, for many individuals, the most effective--and exhilirating!--kind of activism.
I discuss my view of in-line activism in my August 1 and August 8 , 2008 articles in my weblog, Making Progress.
In this case I must respectfully disagree. Any one of those men could have simply said, "no" and left, if he chose. Yes, I am aware that they all had boards to answer to, which means that saying no could have amounted to a resignation, if their board chose not to back them up.
ReplyDeleteAnd I think every one of them had some idea of where they stood on the issues involved in that situation.
Perhaps we are having a miscommunication?
ReplyDelete> "Any one of those men could have simply said, 'no' and left, if he chose."
I totally agree.
> "Yes, I am aware that they all had boards to answer to, which means that saying no could have amounted to a resignation, if their board chose not to back them up."
I totally agree.
> "And I think every one of them had some idea of where they stood on the issues involved in that situation."
Exactly. I totally agree.
They would have been engaging in in-line activism if they had said simply said "No"--especially if word had leaked to the journalists and the journalists had called them up for an explanation.
I am puzzled by your comments. Do you think these bankers would be more effective as intellectual activists if they had written letters to the editor of a newspaper about socialized medicine rather than about banking? (That would be off-line activism.)
I think we are miscommunicating. I took your statement, "That means being on one's own home-ground," as implying that the room at the Treasury Department where the meeting took place on Monday was not an approppriate place to stand one's ground.
ReplyDeleteI apologize.
No need to apologize. My writing was imprecise. I should have said: "professional arena" or "area of expertise" or something to denote type of work activity and content rather than place.
ReplyDeleteI am sorry you had to pay a price for it, but I am glad to be able to learn from this miscommunication. I hope it will make me clearer in the future. Thank you.
The major school of economic thought today is neoclassical keynesianism. Most financial specialists and professional economists are neoclassicals, including the bankers. They believe strongly that government spending and borrowing can hedge against market contractions, so its no surprise that bankers have kept their mouths shut.
ReplyDelete