Bouncing between CNBC this morning and the CBS Morning news
two stories came up striking a familiar cord. First CBS referenced an interview
with Marco Rubio by Chris Wallace of Fox News about Shifting Answers – On the
Iraq War. The crux of the questions from Wallace was on the clarity of
twenty-twenty hindsight and attempting to persuade the presidential candidate
to admit the war was a mistake.
CBS sighted a poll
that 75% of Americans thought the war was “not worth it.” The best Rubio could
say, in defense of a republican predecessor was; he made his decision on the
best information he had at the time. Since the issue was about whether there
were WMD’s in place and subsequently none have been found. For myself I always
thought the war was personal, Saddam had made public statements about his
goal/desire to kill the senior Bush while he was in office. Rubio also added “A
President cannot make a decision on what someone might know in the future.” So
the President does not have to consider potential consequences to a particular
course of action? To call such a position outrageous is insufficient.
CNBC featured some footage of Tim Cook’s (Apple CEO) commencement
address at George Washington University encouraging students not to stand on
the sidelines and to be impatient about progress for solving the world’s
problems. Citing Martin Luther King, Cook encouraged students not be one of
those good people who stand by in “appalling silence.”
Cook has spoken before about how he made his decisions and
encouraged similar actions. In the GWU address he spoke to his experience of
interviewing with Steve Jobs at Jobs second stint at Apple, and how Cook knew
he was on a road to something definitive. In his 2010 commencement address at
Auburn Cook said “. . . there are times when careful consideration of costs and
benefits just does not seem like the right way to make a decision.” Jobs was
obviously persuasive as the future was bleak for Apple in 1997.
Decision making is to weigh the costs and benefits, evaluate
the data, and make the best possible choice. Sometimes all the data must still
be evaluated against the values of the community or individual, and that position
could be in opposition to the “facts.” Further, I would suggest, no decision
can be made without an evaluation of potential consequences. That is what
struck me with Rubio’s remark. He is stating there is no expectation for
evaluating probable consequences.
Cook hardly touches on the topic of failure/consequence
other than the final decision must be made carefully. Data, values, balance
with the risks, and if you fail, admit it, fix it and move on. Something
neither of the major political parties is willing to do.
