Ron Lipsman Transcript

February 23, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Announcer: Welcome, and thanks for tuning in to “Sound Authors” with host Dr. Kent. Get set for candid conversations about everything from cuisine to culture and from nature to nurture. Now here’s your host, Dr. Kent.

Dr. Kent Gustavson: Welcome to “Sound Authors.” Today’s an interesting show. I’m snowed in here. It’s a beautiful day out in New York. We’ve got about a half of foot of snow on the ground and my dog has been eating the snow and playing around like mad. It’s a great day to be inside and doing some radio broadcasting.The show today has a little bit of everything. The last guest on the show will be, “The Anonymous 4.” Marsha Genensky, an incredible group that blends classical music, baroque music and now, folk music. Debra Johnson is going to be on the show. She’s going to talk about race in the south and how things have come since 1968. Her new novel is just been released. My first guest is, his name is Ron Lipsman.Well, let’s just start chatting. Welcome to the show Ron.

Ron Lipsman: Thank you very much. Thank you for inviting me.

Dr. Kent: Tell me a little bit about your newest book.

Ron: The name of the book is “Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains.” It’s a book about the correlation between age and political philosophy. It attempts to put some meat on the old sore, if you’re young and not liberal you have no heart and if you’re old and not conservative than you have no brain.

Dr. Kent: Now, you’re a professor of mathematics at the University of Maryland.

Ron: That’s right.

Dr. Kent: How did you get into writing a book about liberals and conservatives in this country?

Ron: It goes back a long way actually. I was turned on to politics by my uncle who bought me a subscription to the “New York Times” and urged me to read it every day and questioned me about it all the time. I reacted enthusiastically and I retained that enthusiasm over the years. My uncle is a classic New Deal democrat and of course, he steered me in that direction.As I got older, my politics drifted to the right and it was kind of interesting that this was not happening amongst my friends and family. So I had lots of interesting political discussions with them. The same thing was happening at the university. I’m at the University of Maryland and have been for a long time. Everybody like myself, sort of started out on the left. I was one of the few who was drifting to the right.This often caused some difficulty. People at the university were not as engaging as, let’s say, my family. It became clear to me over the years this was not such a great thing for me. It wasn’t doing my career any good and so I kind of muzzled myself for many years. But then I decided I would take the muzzle off. In doing so, I wrote this book.

Dr. Kent: Tell me where you do sit? You were sort of on the left and now you’ve drifted right. What does that mean?

Ron: Well, I started off as a classic liberal. As I thought more and more about things and some of the events that occurred in my life that I describe in the book, caused me to rethink my political actions, if you will. I started drifting to the right and adopting more and more conservative positions. So, as I said, I moved progressively to the right, basically in my 30s. I describe in the book through a series of vignettes the events that triggered that.

Dr. Kent: There are several, when we look at public figures, when we look at public figures that have shifted a little bit, including Laura Bush used to be a liberal.

Ron: I wouldn’t know about that.

Dr. Kent: For example, Maria Shriver is now married to Arnold Schwarzenegger. How do we, in this country, with all the politics going on and things like that, how do liberals and conservatives, the young and the old, are they irreconcilable? I know there is quite a divide with these primaries between young and old.

Ron: That seems to be a theme these days, that somehow the divisions between us are more egregious than usual. But I argue in the book that it’s not really the case. That the political divisions in America go back a long way. I mean just think, that from the very beginning of our republic, we had Federalists against Democratic Republicans, they were called back then. Hamilton and Adams on the one hand and Jefferson and Madison on the other, they were bitter, bitter opponents.Later on, in the 19th century the Whigs and the Democrats went at it; Henry Clay and Daniel Webster against Andrew Jackson. Even from the beginning of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln had his hands full with the Copperheads and the Democratic Party. So, I don’t think the situation is that different from how it has been at times in the past.I have a theory as to why we feel today that it is so more bitter than we thought it was at other times.

Dr. Kent: What’s that?

Ron: Well, as also, I argue in the book, I argue that from, say, roughly 1700 to 1900 the country was basically a conservative country. The nature of the country, its political philosophy, its social ideals, where by today’s standards actually very conservative but that began to change rather drastically toward the beginning of the 20th century with the so-called Progressive Era. From Roosevelt one through Wilson, up to Roosevelt two, right up into the 70s the liberals pretty much controlled the political agenda of the United States.Now there was a conservative counter-revolution that began in the 50s that came to fruition under Ronald Reagan in the 80s and I think there were people who thought at that time that we were going to swing back to a conservative philosophy in the country, but it didn’t happen. It didn’t happen for a couple of reasons. One, there was no successor to Reagan, no real conservative successor was groomed and the two Bush’s –father and son — have played a big role in sort of subverting the conservative agenda. Another reason is that the liberals did not surrender sort of the way the conservatives surrendered before the onslaught of the new deal.So, we’ve had this ferocious political battle going on for the last 20 years, it’s sort of the political soul of America. I think that in some sense, America is tired of that battle and we see that in the current political campaign. Our search for a healer or a unifier is very evident. I think we are a little weary of it and we wish it were over. I think, actually, in the next decade the country will turn significantly either to the right or to the left. I don’t know which, but I think it will and then maybe the acrimony will subside a bit.

Dr. Kent: What I find fascinating right now is that on the republican side McCain seems to be the candidate of choice, but the conservative part of his party is livid about it and that’s why they seem to be supporting Huckabee so much. It’s fascinating on the other side that both candidates seem to be trying to figure out how liberal to go, when to stay conservative. How do you define liberal and conservative in both parties?

Ron: That’s not so easy and it’s one of the things I also discuss in the book. It’s difficult to quantify, or describe quantitatively, what it means to be political or politically liberal, or politically conservative. Although, I do it in the book and I touch upon what I call 24 touchdown issues, which sort of separate liberals from conservatives. I go through them in some detail. I think we all pretty much know what the liberal and the conservatives stances are, at least the hard core ones. People don’t have any trouble differentiating between them.

Dr. Kent: Then and there’s a question for you. So, if you went from liberal to conservative, why was it? Are we talking about socially conservative that you’ve become or politically?

Ron: I would say in all regards, social and economic, political as well of course. So, that’s one of the arguments in the book. I intend to argue that there is often, maybe not always, a correlation that generally as people age they tend to be more conservative. This is not a surprising conclusion.There is the aphorism that’s referred to in the title of my book and if there weren’t some truth to it, then of course, it still wouldn’t be popular. But, I made some attempt to quantify it although I don’t think I completely succeeded in that. I argued more for a qualitative way. Well, it’s somewhat complicated and I think you need to take a look at the book if you want to get exactly how the argument goes.

Dr. Kent: So, when we talk about mathematics one of my favorite shows out there right now is “Numbers”, and I’m always intrigued. I’m not really a mathematician, I loved it as a child, but I love this show because it always puts in these theorems, which may or may not be correct. But I think people are very fascinated by mathematics now, partially due to that show and what it can do for the world, whether in CSI that kind of crime scene, or in solving a crime. In here, you talk about liberals and conservatives. How does mathematics come into play?

Ron: Well, I actually develop a theory in which I had five compartments, which attempted to divvy up the world between liberals and conservatives. Then I analyzed those compartments, where liberals and conservatives sat in them, and I related it to age. Then I decided what was the nature of the correlation, whether it was very strong, moderately strong, weak, or negative.Then I assigned mathematical weights to each of those and basically, took an average. Since it came out on the positive side, I argued that I had somewhat factiously reached a mathematical conclusion that there was truth to the aphorism that as you age, you tend to be more conservative. So, it was very elementary mathematics. But, I tried it to reason a little bit quantitatively.

Dr. Kent: You’re also a Dean and you’re well respected in your University, what do your colleagues think about the latest project?

Ron: Well I think that they, actually I’ll go out on a limb here. I think things have changed a little bit in the University. I think from the mid-70’s on, the liberals controlled the academic world, no question about it. I remember the election with McGovern. All of my colleagues said that they couldn’t fathom how Nixon won. They didn’t know a single person who voted for him.I think that’s changed a little bit in the last five or six years. I think that there are more common conservative mindsets on campus. I meet more colleagues that are a little more conservative than I used to, say 10 or 15 years ago. I think that is a sign for the better, actually.

Dr. Kent: What’s your take on John McCain? Is he conservative enough?

Ron: I think that this is a difficult issue for people who view themselves as hard-line conservative. The answer is probably no. But, he’s far more conservative than either of the potential opponents on the democratic side. So, I think in the end, probably a lot of conservative republicans will vote for him, not because they’re enthusiastic about him but because they see him as the lesser of two evils, shall we say.

Dr. Kent: So when you were a young man, who would you have chosen, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

Ron: Between the two of them?

Dr. Kent: Yeah, when you were still a liberal.

Ron: I probably would have chosen Obama. I remember being very enamored of John Kennedy. He made you feel good and I think Obama is like that in many ways. People don’t listen carefully to what he’s saying, he’s not saying very much but he says it very eloquently, and people are inspired by him. Hillary’s a bit of a plotter. So, were I a liberal, I’m pretty sure I would select Obama over her.

Dr. Kent: Right. Have you spoken to some of your students? Does it seem that they have the liberal hearts and then are your colleagues are sort of starting to become the conservatives?

Ron: I think, yes, I would say so. The young people are very idealistic: the world is still - their lives are head of them; they think they can fix the world, perfect it, make it better. They haven’t been bitten by reality yet; and so they tend to be more idealistic, and often that goes with the liberal mindset. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. The hope is that they will grow up.

Dr. Kent: So the conservative party is kind of the grownup party in your -

Ron: Well, I said that somewhat tongue in cheek - and I hope you heard my tongue in my cheek. But I think there’s some - again, sort of like the aphorism: there’s a little bit of truth to that. If you accept my philosophy that with age tends to come more conservative, then it’s not unreasonable to say that, as we grow older, or grow up, of you will, we get to be a little bit more conservative.

Dr. Kent: You did talk a little bit about the Bushes. And you say that they didn’t really hit the conservative stance, necessarily.

Ron: I’m sorry: we had a disconnect for a moment; I didn’t hear you.

Dr. Kent: Did the Bushes throw the party off a little bit?

Ron: Yes. In the book, I refer to them as faux conservatives: the father certainly more than the son. If you think back: Bush was very critical of Reagan; he called his economic policies “Voodoo economics”. And that “Voodoo economics” has had us with almost 25 years’ continuous economic growth. So I don’t think he was a - both of them are sort of like Rockefeller Republicans, sort of what we think of as “moderate Republicans”. I don’t think they really believe in a laissez-faire economy; they believe in big government; they believe in looking to government to solve problems.Bush the younger, I think, is more a social conservative than his father. But, in terms of economy, economics, and maybe other areas, he, I think, would be classified as a centrist.

Dr. Kent: What’s your take on Ron Paul?

Ron: I think he’s a classic libertarian - which, I know, is often confused with conservativism, but it’s not quite the same thing. I think he’s a very honest guy, a very classic libertarian. Not particularly my taste, but there are obviously lots of people who like him.

Dr. Kent: Let’s project into the future a little bit. Let’s say it’s a contest between Obama and McCain, which is likely. If Obama were to win and the House and Senate were to remain Democratic, where would the country go from there?

Ron: Well, I think there’s a good chance that Obama will be the president. I think that there’s a lot of dissatisfaction with the economy, with the war. If you look at the way the voting has gone, the number of ballots cast in the Democratic primaries have far exceeded the Republican ones. I think there’s a good chance - well, as I say, it’s theirs to lose. It’s hard to imagine. And, unless Mr. McCain runs some sort of incredibly inspired campaign, I think, he will be an underdog.It also would appear that the Democrats will retain control of the Congress. How big of a gain they have remains to be seen. But, should there be huge Democratic gains and Obama elected president, then, I think, there’s a danger that we will shift hard left. And we’ll see another New Deal, Great Society kind of episode of liberal legislation. I don’t look forward to it.

Dr. Kent: Well, it’s a fascinating discussion, because the country is so divided. But what I find fascinating is that, somehow, it’s now possible to believe, kind of in your own politics: it’s not quite as divided as it used to be. It used to be “This candidate or that one.”: that was the only choice. And I think people feel as if they’re process again a little more. What do you think about that change?

Ron: Certainly it’s opened up a lot more. We don’t select our candidates in smoke-filled rooms, as we used to do. On the other hand, it’s not so clear that what we’re doing is the right - is such a great method. I mean it’s almost like an American Idol contest, rather than an election campaign.Before we finish, I would like to make one point. In the book, I do talk about, in spite of the differences, the points of commonality; and I develop about a dozen of them. Patriotism is one of them - and a few others. And I think that it’s still a debate: nobody’s throwing rocks at one another; we’re all still Americans, and I think America’s still got a great reservoir of strength, and I’m still very optimistic about the country.I hope that we’ll have conservatives instead of liberals. But, either way, I think that America’s still got a great future; and I think we have to keep that in mind as we go forward.

Dr. Kent: Well, this has been a fascinating discussion. And I know that there’s a lot more that we could talk about your book: I know that you also talk about vignettes from your life. And encourage lots of folks to go check it out; it’s called Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains: The Correlation between Age and Political Philosophy. It’s available in just about any bookstore as well as from 1-800- - what’s the number?

Ron: I’m not sure which number you’re referring to. But the simplest thing for people to do is to go online and Google my name and it will come up. Or go to Amazon.com and type in my name and it comes up.

Dr. Kent: Wonderful. Well, it’s been a fantastic conversation, and I look forward to seeing the mathematics and politics from you in the future.

Ron: Well, thank you very much for inviting me.

Dr. Kent: And the next guest on the show is Deborah Johnson, with her new novel; and we’re going to chat about Mississippi, about race. And come on back.[music]

Posted by admin | Filed Under TRANSCRIPTS, Politics, AUTHOR INTERVIEW, PODCAST

Anonymous Four | Medieval & Folk

February 22, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Interview with Anonymous Four: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

We spoke with Marsha Genensky on the show, one of the four stunning singers in the classical quartet Anonymous Four. She told us about their recent folk craze, as well as the early medieval music they specialize in… This interview was a great honor, and paints a small picture of the group that does Tavener and Sacred Harp in the same breath!

More information from their website www.anonymous4.com (a quote taken from the Wall Street Journal):

I first heard Anonymous 4 in 1990 on a mixed program at Music Before 1800, New York’s most important early- music series. A female quartet singing unaccompanied medieval music, the group was only a few years old: little known, unrecorded and without professional management. The singers were extraordinary. Their haunting vocalism, uncovering the depths of this harrowing music, was unlike anything I had ever heard. It was like finding a treasure in the attic. Why weren’t they famous?

Now they are. Anonymous 4’s final New York concert this Sunday evening at Music Before 1800 at the Corpus Christi Church has been sold out since the first week of April, which was also when “American Angels,” the group’s 15th recording for Harmonia Mundi, reached No. 1 on the Billboard classical chart. In the past 14 years, Anonymous 4 has become a powerhouse, popular beyond imagining for an early-music ensemble. Its recordings, which helped put its boutique record company on the map in the U.S., have sold close to 1.3 million units world-wide. When Anonymous 4 announced last February that the 2003-04 season would be its last, presenters began falling all over themselves to secure a date. The concerts have been getting standing — even screaming — ovations, which is gratifying, if a little amazing, for Anonymous 4. “Imagine if we’d had a ‘This Is Spinal Tap’ kind of last tour,” says Jacqueline Horner with a theatrical shudder.

Posted by admin | Filed Under Folk, Classical, MUSICIAN INTERVIEW, PODCAST

Deborah Johnson | Mississippi Novel

February 22, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Interview with Deborah Johnson: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

We had the great pleasure of speaking with Deborah Johnson on the show today, a great first-time author of a wonderful American novel. Her father was an African-American physician, and his soul, and hers, are certainly in the book. Listen in to find out more.

From Publisher’s Weekly:

In Johnson’s vivid debut, Revere, Miss., is a 1966 small town teetering on the brink of integration. Willie B. Tate Jr., a 10-year-old black boy known as Critter, drives poor white man Billy Ray Puckett to the whites-only emergency room after Billy Ray has a hunting accident. Caught up in the middle of the fallout after Billy Ray’s unexpected death is Dr. Cooper Connelly, a prominent white doctor who serves on the school board and has controversial prointegration views. Cooper is a man with secrets, including why he keeps company with Madame Melba Obrensky, a raceless woman with a mysterious past who manages to keep herself well-apprised of all sides of the town’s doings. Melba happens to be the next-door neighbor of Dr. Reese Jackson, a respected black physician who has managed to cross the race barrier and establish his practice on Main Street. As the heat of the school board meetings about integration and of the investigation into Billy Ray’s death increase, the atmosphere becomes explosive. Johnson tries to squeeze too much out of the limited plot, but compelling character studies keep pages turning.

Posted by admin | Filed Under History, Politics, Fiction, AUTHOR INTERVIEW, PODCAST

Ron Lipsman | Young Blues and Old Reds

February 22, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Interview with Ron Lipsman: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

We spoke with Ron Lipsman, professor, mathematician, and author on the show today. His new book is intriguing, and his theories thought-provoking. He is convinced that aging liberals slide towards conservatism. Definitely interesting.More information about Ron Lipsman from his website http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman:

Ron Lipsman is Senior Associate Dean and Professor of Mathematics in the College of Computer, Mathematical and Physical Sciences at the University of Maryland. He has a Bachelor of Science degree from the City College of New York and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from M.I.T. He is the author or co-author of eleven books dealing with mathematics and computing. He has also published more than 70 scientific research articles and is the editor of numerous mathematical research volumes. Recently, he published YOU CAN DO THE MATH: How to Overcome your Math Phobia and Make Better Financial Decisions, a financial self-help manual for the math-challenged people of America. He divides his time between College Park and Garrett County in Western Maryland, and his interests oscillate between math and science on the one hand and politics and history on the other. For more information see Ron’s professional homepage at the University of Maryland or his political blog on townhall.com.

Posted by admin | Filed Under Politics, AUTHOR INTERVIEW, PODCAST

Larry Dennis Transcript

February 16, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Announcer: You’ve been listening to Sound Authors, where authors sound off. If you’d like more information about Sound Authors and Dr. Kent’s guests, visit soundauthors.com, now, back to Dr. Kent and friends.

Kent Gustavson: Welcome back to Sound Authors. It’s February 15th, the day after Valentine’s Day, and we’re in the thick of political season. This year’s the election. We haven’t had this kind of political furor in a good long while. It’s fun to see out there.My next guest is Larry Dennis, and he wrote a book called “15 Leadership Principles and Ronald Reagan: Use Them to Change Your World.” Welcome to the show, Larry.

Larry Dennis: Hey, it’s great to be with you. And you’re right. There’s a lot of excitement out there. It’s good to see people turning out in these primaries in numbers that we haven’t seen in a long time.

Kent: It’s really extraordinary.

Larry: It really is.

Kent: Tell me a little bit. You’ve been coaching executives and leaders for a long time now. Tell me a little bit about that first.

Larry: Well, you’re right. I’ve been doing it for, literally, over 40 years. And what we discovered a long time ago–and I keep learning, hopefully–is that everybody has a potential for being even more effective in their role as a leader.Most people come into their positions of management because of certain specialized knowledge, experience. That doesn’t make you leader. And you can see that in many arenas. You can certainly see it in politics, and you see it in business and education and everywhere.

Kent: And what I find interesting is that, when we think about Ronald Reagan, he’s a polarizing figure. Back in the ’80s, he both excited a lot of people and angered a lot of people. But now, most people look back on his presidency and his life with reverence.Even Barack Obama said something about Ronald Reagan’s ability to pull in both sides. And that’s true. A lot of Democrats went across the aisle to vote for Reagan. How did he become a leader, after being an actor and all of that?

Larry: Well most people don’t know his background, but Ronald Reagan became very involved in the actors’ union many years before he became involved in politics. And there he learned how to negotiate. He learned how to lead. He learned how to bring disparate interests together.And he dedicated his life there. He did a lot of wonderful things for the actors. He’s the one responsible for the fact that they get residuals, and that’s something he negotiated hard for. Of course, there were interests in taking over that union at the time.I don’t want to get into all that. But that’s where he began to develop his ability.

Kent: Obviously, in writing this book, you delved quite a bit into his life? How was that, digging through archives and reading books?

Larry: Oh, gee. It was one of the most exciting experiences of my life, to do that. And I thought I knew a little bit about him, and I guess, maybe in some ways, I thought I knew more than I did when I started into this process.But what happened for me is, the day that he died, I was working in my backyard. It was a Saturday. I had to go into town to get some extra supplies, and I hadn’t been paying attention to anything. I just turned the radio on. And that was June 11th of 2004.And the announcement came on that Ronald Reagan had died, and I just spontaneously said, “Oh, no!” And I started crying. I honestly have never had an experience like that before in my life, or since.So anyway, then I began to think about. I said, “What’s going on here? Why did I have that response?” and said to a friend what I thought I wanted to do and started working on this project. I thought it would take a year. It took four.What I came away from it was with a deep, deep appreciation for the humility of this man and a much deeper realization that that’s one of the characteristics of truly empowering leaders. They have a kind of humility that we don’t find often enough.

Kent: He’s from an older generation. And his mannerisms, his speaking was so proper and sure. Every president and every political person reads speeches, but he had a real gift at pulling stuff across.

Larry: He really did. And again, what most people don’t realize is that he certainly had speech writers. There’s no question about it. He was very committed to his style. And often, he rewrote speeches. And very often, he wrote a big part of his speeches himself, which is not common in that role, to say the least.

Kent: So do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger can follow on his coattails, an actor stepping up to be president?

Larry: [laughs] what a great question.

Kent: [laughs]

Larry: They have a couple of things in common, obviously, but one of the things they have in common is that when Arnold Schwarzenegger speaks, people listen. We love to make fun of him, but you listen to him.You listen probably even harder than you might otherwise, [laughs] because you can’t always understand what he’s saying. But you do listen. And certainly, when Ronald Reagan spoke, people listened. They really listened. They hung on every word, I think.

Kent: I watched these CNN debates, both Democrats and Republicans. The Republican are paying a lot of homage to Reagan. Why is that? Why is McCain really trying to hearken back to Reagan, and all of these candidates?

Larry: Well, he’s the most popular president of my life, and of your lifetime. There are surveys that have been taken asking people if they can name the president, and there are people today, believe it or not, who can’t.But he has more recognition, in terms of past presidents, of any other president. That’s part of the reason.And again, unless you go back and kind of look at some of that history, when he was elected, the country was in extraordinarily difficult times. Unemployment was almost 20 percent. Inflation was, at one point, that same number. We were disrespected throughout the world.There were huge, huge difficulties in the world. And he turned that around. And he got 80 percent of the vote. He did amazing things.And that’s why people want to ride on his coattails. That’s why they want to hitchhike on his success. Because he’s the one who was able to do two things: bring the nation together, bring both sides of the aisle together, and he was also able to turn the country around at a time when it was really in a desperate, desperate shape.

Kent: How can you tell? I mean, obviously, with Ronald Reagan, the world noticed when he passed away. And he was the president, and there’s no question that he was a successful leader.But how do you find, in communities, in anywhere, in businesses, what makes a successful leader?

Larry: I’ve been talking about what the makeup of a successful leader is for all these years, 40 years. And I’ve said that they have to have technical knowledge. They’ve got to know their business, in other words.Then they have to have the ability to communicate. And finally, they have to have the right attitude. They’ve got to maintain their own inner attitude successfully. And those are all challenges.But what I didn’t do for most of those years was say, “How do I know? How can I prove, or how do you prove, if you’re an effective leader?” Most of the time, I think we say it’s based on what that person does.And that’s not really true. Ultimately, the test is: do people follow you? That’s the test of whether or not you’re an empowering and effective leader.And here are the four areas that I’ve concluded are the test of a really empowering and effective leader.And Ronald Reagan passed these tests. Number one–and this is everybody in your audience now–the people in your crew, in your department, on your team, do they bring discretionary engagement or discretionary effort to the job?And certainly, Barack Obama has found a way to get people to bring discretionary effort to the job. And what I mean by that: most of the people who are working for him aren’t getting paid for it. And on the job, the same thing is true.For your department to win, for your crew to win, you can’t just pay people to get the job done. They’ve got to give you more than you can buy with money. So that’s number one.Number two, people have to be willing to sacrifice for the vision of the leader. So they’re willing to make personal sacrifice. I’m willing to give up some of my time or some of my other resources, for not the leader necessarily, but the vision of the leader.And Barack Obama’s talking about “Change, change, change.” Now, if I’m willing to take a day off from work to come and campaign for him, or come and campaign for McCain or come and campaign for whoever I’m supportive of, that means that I’m willing to sacrifice for the vision of this leader.And this is a really important one, and a little confusing sometimes. But number three is, when the leader steps out of the room, and one of my crew members, one of my team members does something that’s contrary to what we’re supposed to be doing around here, is the team self-monitoring? Are they self-disciplining? Do they say, “Wait a minute, that’s not how we do it here”?And then, finally, do people change their values to align their values with the leader’s values? Do they say, at some point on the horizon, “You know what? I didn’t used to think that safety was that important. I do a lot of work in business and industry.But you know what? It really is important. So I’m changing my view of that.” Or, “I didn’t used to think it was that important that we maintain physical fitness. But you know what? Boss has been talking about us all getting on a little exercise regimen. I’m going to do that, because I think that’s important to do.” Or wherever else you might apply this.So the four tests are discretionary engagement, sacrifice for the leader’s vision, self-monitoring or self-disciplining, and aligning with the leader’s values. Reagan did all those, hands down, big time.

Kent: That’s fascinating. Let me ask you a question. You mentioned Barack Obama a couple times. What do you think Ronald Reagan would have thought of an African American and a woman candidate for the president?

Larry: That’s a great question. I’m really; really glad you asked me that, two quick responses. First of all, you’ll remember that he was the oldest one in his campaigns, and one of his comments in of the debates was, “I’m not going to hold your youth and inexperience against you.”He often made himself the brunt of humor, but he always had good humor about no matter what was brought his way. He was always able to give it the light touch, and always did it with the greatest possible respect.One of my favorite stories about Ronald Reagan we discovered in our researching of the book was, when he was in college–and not many people got to go to college during the Depression. He was one of the fortunate few. And he came from a very poor family, and his father was an alcoholic, an itinerant shoe salesman.The football team came back through his town of Dixon, Illinois. And they went to check in to the hotel, and the hotel manager said, “The white guys can come in, but the black guys can’t.” The coach was so upset by that. He was just livid. He came back out to the bus.Ronald actually went into the hotel with him because he was from the town. He was going to go back out to the bus and say, “We’re all going to sleep on the bus tonight.”And Ronald Reagan said, “You don’t want to do that. It’s going to make the black members of the team feel bad. Here’s what I want to do. You just say, ‘Look, there’s not quite enough room for everybody.’ I’ll take the black members of the team home with me.”, because he was from the town.The coach said, “Well, what will your mother say about that?” And Ronald Reagan’s response was, “My mother is colorblind. I don’t have to ask her. She’ll welcome anyone into her home any time, and they’re my friends and they’re her friends.”I just love that story. And it’s a part of his pedigree. It’s a part of who he was. And it’s a sad story in another way, because it’s saying some things about our country that is things that I’m not that proud of, but that’s a part of our history.

Kent: That’s fascinating to know the little details about Ronald Reagan’s life and think about leadership, with this upcoming election. It’s been a pleasure speaking with you today. The book is called, one more time…

Larry: ”15 Leadership Principles and Ronald Reagan: Use Them to Change Your World, ” by Larry Dennis.

Kent: And Larry W. Dennis, Sr. I guess your son is also Larry Dennis?

Larry: Yes, that’s right.

Kent: OK. And where can we find it online?

Larry: You can find this book at turbols.com.

Kent: Wonderful. Well, it’s been such a pleasure. I wish you all the best, and I will look forward to checking this out in the future.

Larry: Thank you. Bye now.

Kent: My next guest is Neal and Leandra. They have a wonderful song, “Old Love,” that is the soundtrack to my love life here, and to many people’s. Come on back. You don’t want to miss it.

Posted by admin | Filed Under History, TRANSCRIPTS, Politics, AUTHOR INTERVIEW, PODCAST

« Previous Page — Next Page »