Harmonizing with Uncle Sam

Richard F. Taitano

Micronesian Area Research Center Thinking out loud

guam humanities council lecture series

Harmonizing with uncle sam A new rap or a swan song? three of three by

Dr. robert a. underwood October 2003

An online publication of the Micronesian Area Research Center University of Guam

Thinking Out Loud Harmonizing with Uncle Sam A new rap or a swan song?

By Robert A. Underwood In this last lecture, we will look at the possibility of developing a new message in Washington and also draw some attention to developing a new approach to how we represent our interests in the nation’s capital. We have used a musical metaphor for these three lectures and tonight’s presentation is advertised as composing a new more harmonious tune.

We definitely need a new rap in both the speaking and musical sense. Our son, “Uncle Sam Won’t You Please Come Back to Guam” seems out of place except at certain times during the year. It is quickly becoming our swan song rather than the invigorating anthem it once was. Trying out the tune “No Representation Without Taxation” seems true, but uninspired. Tonight we will write down some possibilities. But we must also pay attention to other dimensions in our musical metaphor. In addition to a new tune and new lyrics, we have to focus on the conductor, the singers, the strength of voices and, most importantly, the audience.

We have taken the time to analyze how we present ourselves and perhaps how others see us in Washington. Perceptions in politics, as in life, die hard. It is easier to simply take the short-hand logic that exists than to spend the time understanding the complexity and nuances of an issue. Our issues are important to us and they cry out for understanding. Territorial issues are complex and specialized because they rely on a special history and a different body of law.

They do not fit into the normal state-federal patterns that are sufficiently complex enough on their own.

Federal Perceptions: The Audience But, the reality is that in Washington D.C., territorial issues are of limited national consequence. Politically, they matter very little because of their territorial status and size. The territories are insignificant economically and the reasons for their acquisition are lost in some historical archive that has limited applications today.

Coaling stations are no longer useful and Guam was taken for that specific purpose. Fortunately, we have served other purposes as well.

In general, territories are seen as a drag on the national treasury. Collectively they are thought of as very minor jurisdictions to which the national government distributes large sums of money, most of which is undeserved because of their

tax status. The economies are not viable without a heavy infusion of federal cash. The governments that exist in these islands are mismanaged and frequently corrupt. Federal officials, auditors and the federal bureaucracy (not to mention real corruption and mismanagement) insure a steady stream of information along these lines.

These perceptions come to light only in infrequent moments in the making of national policy. When I came back home from Washington during my tenure in Congress, people would frequently ask me about the Washington mood in relationship to Guam. I would reply that the good news is that there is no bad mood; the bad news is that there is no good mood. The reality is that not too many people spend a lot of time thinking about us over there. For us, this only reinforces our “forgotten stepchild” point of view.

There is a circle of territorial policy making which operates on a daily basis. The circle includes the Delegates and officials in the Department of Interior who have the official responsibility to coordinate insular policy. They have staff counterparts in the House Resources and Senate Energy Committees. These staffers are absolutely critical to any policy regarding Guam in Washington. The Department of Defense has their eyes on us via a number of sources, as does the Department of Justice through the US Attorney’s office and now the Department of Homeland Security. The main participants in the day-to-day consideration of territorial issues are still the DOI, the Delegates and the Committee staffers.

This circle spends time analyzing stories about corruption in Guam, mismanagement, newspaper accounts like those recently appearing in the Stars and Stripes and especially audits. Territorial audits seem to be the lifeblood that pumps through the hearts of bureaucrats. In the annual reports of the Department of Interior, the various sub-units (like BLM and National Park Service) report on their achievements. For a number of years, the Office of Insular Affairs featured territorial audits conducted by OIA as their main annual activities.

Conveying a meaningful, comprehensible and important message in this environment is a tall order. Some would argue that we just have to get out of Interior’s grasp or just get the right circle of friends (free or paid) and things will work out. The good thing about Washington is that if you don’t have any friends, you can always pay to get some. They are called lobbyists. But no matter what the construct we have to face in Washington, we have to fashion a message, a new song which engages the audience, speaks to fundamental change and strikes a responsive chord.

The Same Old Song We can go back to the same old song. This is the song that we have sung so proudly in the past. It is a tune that emphasizes our steadfast loyalty and our

willingness to sacrifice. It has paid dividends in the past or at least we like to think so. The old formula of loyalty plus sacrifice equals federal rewards just doesn’t seem to work any more. It is like playing the cha cha in Washington night spots and expecting everyone to just jump up and start humming “Chachacha Chamorro.”

Effective messaging, just like effective political rhetoric, must motivate people and change the course of ideas. We must not only touch people’s hearts, we must link a proposed course of action with new ideas, ideas which simultaneously touch on deeply held beliefs and reflect a new vision. Messages which only touch the heart may cause reflection, but they do not necessarily move people to act. Finding the right language and touching the right chord is not easy. It is important to understand that there is a connection between language and leadership, between words and beliefs.

Political rhetoric and political messaging takes consistency and a particular approach. We can learn many lessons from history. Do we shame the oppressor, like Gandhi did in challenging British rule in India? Do we speak to a grander moral purpose as Martin Luther King Jr. did to an entire nation? Do we speak to the fulfillment of political ideals in compelling intellectual language like a Thomas Jefferson? Do we speak of challenges like Lincoln or new frontiers like Kennedy or a new social conscience like Jane Hull?

We have tried various dimensions of this, but not in a consistent or coherent way.

We fall back on the easy rhetorical devices that make us feel good or which we hope will make the federal audience feel bad enough that they will change policy and funding levels. We play to only to the heart and think that a message, which shames the federal government or generates sympathy, will work to our advantage to change policy.

Loyalty and sacrifice make us feel good and feeds our sense of entitlement. We feel that we are entitled to federal programs because of citizenship, but we fail to recognize that not all citizens are in agreement with this. We feel as if we tell our story of degradation, mistreatment by federal officials, a good “someone done me wrong song”; the federal heart will be softened and the federal spigot will be turned on.

Those are all symptomatic of our view of the Guam-federal relationship. The federal side sees massive assistance, a good deal, sympathetic understanding of individual issues, and a little inattention at times, but nothing significant. Guam gets its rightful share already and a little bit more. We are being treated fairly already. They would play “Happy Days Are Here Again.” While we play another son, “It’s A Heartache.”

We have not yet fashioned a political argument worthy of recognition and attention, one which speaks to core American political values and which offers

solutions. We have not spoken coherently on our contribution to the relationship in ways which our federal partner will understand.

The New Song Our new song must be practical, deal with the core American principles on political representation and taxation, identify our strengths and acknowledge our weaknesses. Our message must deal with both the hearts and the minds of the audience. Our song must lead to action and a new course of ideas when it comes to territorial policy, when it comes to Guam. This is a tall order, but we must work on this now. A new Delegate and a new Governor provides opportunities to break new ground.

First and foremost, we must deal with the issue of taxation because it is at the core of so many policy decisions in Washington and it is fundamental to understanding how the average American, as well as policy makers, understands citizen participation in government. Americans pay taxes begrudgingly and most political discourse is about tax rates and tax benefits. No citizen should be allowed to escape this responsibility and simultaneously argue for the full benefits of federal programs. This is seen as an issue of fairness. Fundamentally, taxation is the most practical and far-reaching policy issue we face. It also touches one of the core American principles, which affect policy-making on Guam. To play, you must pay.

We have not seriously worked on a cost-benefit analysis of paying income taxes to federal coffers and securing full participation in federal programs. To be sure, there will be dramatic revenue loss for the Government of Guam, but will this be made up by full access to federal programs? Full participation in Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credit and SSI will bring immediate millions to Guam. Will this massive infusion of new money itself generate sufficient economic activity on-island? We don’t know the answers because we haven’t asked the question.

We need the answers and we should start researching this soon.

If we paid income taxes into the US Treasury, we would not only have access to new programs, we would eliminate the argument that we have some kind of favorable deal with the federal government. We would also deal with the notion that we are the envy of tax-paying America. Moreover, we would regain the high ground on political representation issues in a way, which can be easily understood. “Taxation without representation is tyranny” is part of our national consciousness and historical memory. Nearly all Americans pay income taxes. It would be a short ride to the argument that voting political representation is the next step for the territories.

The other core American principle that we need to address in our message is political representation. We need to participate in the making of laws and policies, which affect us. But this argument for participation only really works if

we deal with the “fairness� issue in the payment of taxes. By resolving that matter, we can then move to the issue of voting representation in Congress and the election of the President.

We must understand that the bid for voting representation in the House is connected to the efforts of the District of Columbia. We should join hands with them and all move forward. The small territories may not be able to make the case for two Senators, but to argue for a single vote in the House of Representatives will be easily understood and supported. This may need a Constitutional amendment although they’re not in unanimity in that assessment.

Voting for President needs a Constitutional Amendment. We can argue for a single electoral vote or argue for a popular vote, which all American citizens can participate in.

Like taxation, this approach is easily understood in Washington and touches core American principles. Failure to immediately achieve voting representation will strengthen our hand in arguing for compensatory mechanisms for our participation in policy-making. These mechanisms include special groups like the Inter Governmental, Inter Agency (IGIA) Task Force. We can argue for these special avenues or full voting participation because, like other Americans, we pay taxes.

The third matter we must address is the negative perception of Guam and other territories due to stories of corruption, mismanagement and our status as an economic basket case. Our tax status draws the highest level of attention in Washington D.C. in a close second, there are stories about mismanagement and corruption in paradise.

Openly dealing with these issues is not an option. It is a requirement. When appropriate, we must explain that we are an experienced people with a proud tradition reaching back several millennia, but a very young government reaching back only two or three generations. We must explain the internal steps we are taking to bring about good government ranging from the creation of the Public Auditor to real accountability systems. We must acknowledge our shortcomings and explain not in a defensive manner, but in a confident demeanor, that progress is being made. This only works if we are in fact implementing real accountability systems and if we can prove that audits result in change and not just more audits.

The negative perceptions include the notion that we are perpetual economic basket case, which requires huge infusions of cash to sustain us. Much of the concern about huge infusions of cash is eliminated by dealing with taxation and full participation in federal programs. We would simply be part of the American tax-paying citizenry and we would get the help we need. This still does not eliminate the need to emphasize our development as a self-reliant economy within the American system. We must still speak the language of private sector

development, efficient management of governmental resources and system of accountability in order to counteract the stories of officials going to prison and an island infiltrated by organized crime syndicates from Asia. It takes a lot of accountability to overcome the effects of a single indictment.

The fourth point I would like to make in crafting a new message is the need to explain the real value of Guam to the rest of the country. Our intrinsic value to the United States is not based on loyalty to America. All Americas are expected to be loyal. We must let the rest of America know that Guam is contributing today to the vitality of the country in ways not fully understood or appreciated by all. We are not a liability, we are an asset. We must consistently provide the message that in this part of the world, we are a solution, not a problem. This fourth component seals the case for Guam.

There is a $10 billion Department of Defense infrastructure in Guam. We have the largest air fuel capacity and weapons storage facility in the Pacific. We will soon become a forward hub in the reconceptualization of the forward positioning of military strategic assets by the Bush-Cheney Pentagon. Additional ships and bombers or fighters are on the horizon.

Our value to the forward reach of the United States and the capacity to project power into this part of the world, indeed all the way to the hot spots of the Middle East, is inestimable. We make our contribution and in making that contribution we forego certain economic activities and take out of circulation many significant assets of our island community. We are an asset, not a liability and, despite the influx of dollars, we remain a significant bargain. These points must be second nature to our political leaders.

It takes a deft touch to make the case that we are a solution and not a problem.

But we must make that case repeatedly. We are a solution to the problems confronted by the country in ensuring a stable, secure environment in the Western Pacific. When there is a need for unfettered projection of American power, we are a solution. When there is a need for the conduct of discreet activities in this part of the world, we are the solution. When there is a need to house significant contingency forces, we are the solution. When there is a need to conduct law enforcement activities in this part of the world, we are the solution.

When difficult refugee problems like the Kurds or even the Burmese arise, we are the solution.

Beyond loyalty, Guam’s ongoing value to America is significant and continues to pay dividends. As Admiral Doran has stated, you can change lots of things in the world, but you can’t change geography.

Our new song will not necessarily be harmonious. It does take a little disequilibrium to crate a new equilibrium, a little antithesis in order to produce a new synthesis. But it must have the critical elements of touching the core

American beliefs about citizen participation and the payment of taxes and the lineages to political representation. Taxation and representation are inextricably linked in the American psychology and historical memory and present practice of setting policy. Our song must also deal with negative perceptions and added value to the American nation. Our value far outweighs our cost to the nation. We must let the rest of the nation know that it is not just us taking stock of the value of our status as Americans. They must pay attention to what Guam adds to the nation.

The Conductor and the Musicians In addition to reconsidering the message we deliver, we must think about the messengers that we use. Our primary messenger will always be the delegate.

The Delegate has the responsibility and the opportunity to convey our message in hearings, floor speeches, media appearances and in interaction with federal officials at all levels on a daily basis. As a member of Congress, the Delegate has “access.” The singe most important individual in conveying Guam’s message is the Delegate. The Delegate must understand, convey in a consistent and effective way, the Guam message.

But being the primary messenger is not the same as being the conductor. If we think of our new song as being played by an orchestra, the conductor, the synthesizer is the most critical role. At the risk of stretching the metaphor, the Delegate will always be the featured soloist, but not necessarily the conductor.

Without a strong conductor or coordination and collaboration in the orchestra, each musician will be playing their own tune. Instead of playing a new tune, we will sound like a cacophony of sounds. We will be still tuning our instruments while others play soothing tunes to federal officials.

The Governor and the Speaker have important roles to play. They have significant standing on their own and depending upon the vicissitudes of partisan politics, either or both may have access to the executive branch or Congress that the Delegate may not have. Currently, the Governor’s connections to the Bush Administration must be fully exploited. But they must be exploited in a way which is coordinated with the others. Failure to coordinate or collaborate in a Team Guam approach will lead to a failure of policy. In this case, political competition and struggling for the public eye are significant obstacles. Some elected officials can put these items aside while others think of nothing else.

The role of a Washington lobbying or communications firm in this environment is critical. The first can not only help deliver the message they can get stories to the media, meetings with key policy makers and enhance “Guam’s standing.” They can even help in the formulation of the message by bringing an appreciation to us about what approaches work best in Washington. But the message must ring true and must be reflective of who we really are. If we develop a contrived message simply to get attention or we misunderstand Washington politics, our

effectiveness, not to mention our authenticity, will suffer. For example a few years ago, we had a small campaign based on the statement that “Guam is the U.S. Bridge to Asia.” It fed our sense of importance, but it was basically an empty statement. I think a lobbyist came up with that.

Because our featured soloist is living in another environment and because our Speaker and Governor live in this environment, the coordination and collaboration necessary to play this tune and convey this message is difficult.

Team Guam is a concept which needs consistent effort in order to ensure that we develop a coherent message. Team Guam must be a working team in order to ensure that the message is delivered consistently and congruently. The Governor and the Delegate must be repetitive when it comes to the message and they must be congruent.

Many of us think that because we know the individuals involved, it must be relatively easy to develop this common message. Speaking from experience, I can tell you that this not always the case. The single member of Congress from North Dakota came up to me one time and asked if I was having problems with the Governor of Guam. I asked him if he had heard something and how did he know that we didn’t see eye to eye. He replied, of course you don’t see eye to eye. It is just the two of you trying to interpret Washington to the same group of constituents. He said it is the same for him. He was always competing with the Governor and similar political affiliations did not mitigate the conflict.

Team Guam must be the cornerstone of our approach, but it must be mindful of the fact that the main spokesperson is the Delegate. The Delegate cannot be Governor and Delegate at the same time. But for the Governor who thinks that he can be Delegate at the same time, they are simply mistaken. The Delegate lives in Washington and is more connected than any Governor can ever be, unless that Governor had previously been a Delegate. But the people of Guam decided they didn’t want that scenario.

It has been a great pleasure to discuss these issues with you. It has been a stimulating experience that I hope ha been of value to all of you. This is not the end of the discussion. It is just the beginning. We still need to craft the actual message. We need to figure out our specific approach to taxation and decide whether political representation is important enough to pursue as a core principle. We still don’t know whether we have a single conductor for our orchestra or a rotating conductor.

We do know that at the end of the day, the message must belong, be understood and supported by the people of Guam. The only way to teach that level of consensus is through discussion and consultation. I trust that I have contributed to that.

--

Editor's Note: This is the third in a three part Guam Humanities Council lecture series, Thinking Out Loud presented in October 2003.