Howard Stern for President

Howard Stern is my hero. Howard Stern has had a profoundly positive impact on my life and the lives of many others. I vote Howard Stern for President.

We usually reserve the word hero for someone who rushed Omaha beach on D-Day. When entertainers approach hero status, it is usually after they use their celebrity to bring attention to catastrophe, perhaps starving children in Africa or a hurricane in Haiti. Listeners know Howard will be found no where near Haiti. So, at first glance, it's hard to make a case for Howard's heroism.

Many people consider his fight for free speech heroic. No doubt Stern (and others) opened up American television and radio to where many topics once forbidden are now openly discussed, especially those of a sexual nature. This is definitely a positive step. But we should recall that Stern did not achieve a free speech victory in public radio. It appeared to me that he was chased from public radio by the FCC and found refuge in a private satellite radio company. Whoever you want to blame, Howard was tossed even before Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and the subsequent backlash that established the even higher fines for 'indecency' we have today. Although the FCC has been relatively quiet under Obama, it has all the tools it needs to censor and levy huge fines. The "public" airways remain firmly under government control. (And don't forget that Donald Trump is waiting impatiently in the wing, ready with lists of conservative judges and justices....)

I am impressed that Howard brought over his audience and grew SiriusXM to thirty million subscribers. I am impressed and delighted that he continues his free speaking ways. But these achievements do not a hero make.

Howard achieves hero status because he has taught an entire generation of listeners empathy.

Howard has an uncanny ability to understand and share the feelings of others. He demonstrates his skills each week for a minimal subscription fee. It's the best deal going for those of us who can't afford therapy.

To the uninitiated or occasional listener, Stern's show conjures a mean, vulgar "locker room" conversation. And if you catch only a few minutes at the wrong time, that is exactly what it is. The show's raw and uncensored nature, however, does not mean it is a free-for-all of indecent discourse. On the contrary, Stern is a maestro, carefully orchestrating a journey into the minds of his eclectic guests, quirky staff and his own jaded Long Island, New York raised brain with a singular goal in mind: truth. Keep listening and you'll begin to hear the music.

Be prepared though. Howard can be cold and disdainful. He is often angry and complains as a matter of course. He brutalizes some of his guests and his own staff even more. But whether Howard is in an angry mood or extra happy fawning over a female guest, Howard delivers from a position of truth and openness. He proclaims to the world: Here I am, a flawed man, oversexed, angry, jealous... yes, and then some. So, now that I've put my weaknesses out there for all to see, how about you? Are you the same as me? Are you better? Who are you?

Who are you? Isn't this the fundamental question we all have as we look around and wonder what the hell is going on? Who are you? And by finding out about you, I get to know a little bit more about myself. This is the magic of empathy.

Empathy seeks to understand, not condemn or condone. New listeners quickly notice that Stern accords as much respect to a prostitute as a movie star. He treats the drunk derelict as respectfully as he does a distinguished doctor. Everyone in his court is treated fairly. No one is above the law. Howard gives his undivided attention to everyone. He shows genuine interest. In return, they share their truth. Along the way, our prejudices begin to fade away.

On Monday's show, Howard and Lady Gaga conversed. (Howard no longer conducts "interviews;" Howard has conversations.) Howard deftly brought us into the life of someone somewhat alien to the male-dominated Stern audience. Of course, regular listeners know that he did this at her first appearance. After that first time, one listener after another called in to remark on how it "completely changed their view" of Lady Gaga. She's a regular now and a pretty good example of how easily Howard can break down walls with skillfully-applied empathic discourse.

Gaga credits discipline and hard work for letting her gifts shine. Howard too maintains a strict personal life: He is in bed on time, eats like a bird and keeps his drinking in check. He obsesses over his health in order to deliver the best he can for his audience. He sacrifices where others succumb to temptation. He's a paragon of the Puritan work ethic. Howard loves to share how hard he worked to perfect his craft: listening to himself, rehearsing, preparing... and living a healthy lifestyle all to ensure he could carry on for the long haul that he knew it would take to achieve success. And his practice paid off.

Herding the zoo of personalities Stern's cultivated over the years takes someone with a well-equipped communication toolbox. According to conflict resolution expert Bill Eddy, when faced with a "high conflict personality" (like just about everybody on the Stern Show to some degree) you should respond to them in a manner directly opposite to what they've come to expect. This is not easy. We instinctively want to fight or flee when we encounter "high conflict" people, and they are accustomed to being met with rejection or anger. Instead, Eddy teaches, show them "empathy, attention and respect." This tactic briefly takes them out of their normal high conflict state of mind, thus affording some time to communicate with them more reasonably. Eddy recommends you remember the acronym, "E.A.R.: Empathy, Attention, Respect" and apply it carefully. (You don't want to confuse empathy with approval or agreement, and you must keep strict time parameters....) Howard uses this technique expertly. To add this to your communication tool box, listen to Howard regularly.

I'm guessing there's no way to show it, but I believe Stern has reduced the amount of suicides, drug abuse, domestic abuse and drunk driving among his listeners. It's a bold claim, and I bet he would accept credit. Listeners know how much Stern likes to talk up talking down a would-be bridge jumper. Regular listeners believe it. Stern's symphony cleanses. His music teaches us that we are not alone, that many others share our same maladies, both physical and mental. Stern induces empathy in his listeners.

Empathy unveils truth. Truth reveals right and wrong. Howard's commentary has taught men of a certain age many basic notions of right and wrong, especially about how to treat women. Here again, the superficial observer sees Howard only denigrating and objectifying the opposite sex. But the long term listener recognizes Howard's love and respect for women. He draws men in with titillation, but leaves us with good information drawn out of women who trust Howard and therefore share with us. Sadly, men have few resources for real information. Most men learn very little about women from women. Even married men appear to suffer a shortage of truly open dialogue. And we get even worse advice from our friends in the proverbial locker room. Stern's ability to empathize yields truth... and men desperately need truth when it comes to women.

Empathy requires an open mind. Howard Stern changes his opinion when new evidence or better reasoning become known to him. Regular listeners know he's evolved on a variety of issues. He's evolved in some ways we would expect from a man with three daughters coming of age: Fewer strippers, more long-form interviews. More impressive to me, however, is that Howard changed his stance on an issue which tends to be less amenable to second guessing: the death penalty. Howard had always staunchly supported the death penalty, including making it a key plank in his run for governor of New York as the Libertarian party nominee. Regular listeners know he's a staunch "law & order" guy. In every controversial event, he gives the benefit of the doubt to the police. But on the issue of the death penalty, he came around to oppose it, noting, among other things, that a large number of people have been exonerated with the introduction of DNA testing. Howard has not only grown skillful through years of practice, but he's become wiser with age.

Howard teaches empathy by example. The journey is often uncomfortable and frequently awkward. He brings us into dimensions we sometimes regret. But we always walk away with a new perspective, and often additional wisdom too.

Is it possible that Howard could bring his wisdom, moral compass and hard work to the Presidency? Oh, that's right. No way. Howard has often stated he would never commit to such an awesome task. And, I'll confess, although Howard's my hero, I'm not sure if four years will be enough time for him to catch up on his foreign policy knowledge. It's as limited as you might expect from a self-described hermit. He makes Gary Johnson look worldly. We can only hope he'll learn to extend his empathy to the many people around the world who suffer from poor American foreign policy decisions.

For now, I'm satisfied that my hero can remain a radio D.J. and continue to do great things for our great country. Stern was apparently the only one in 2002 who could get Trump to answer directly (albeit half-heartedly) in support of invading Iraq. Lately, Stern has relentlessly skewered Trump for the infamous Billy Bush exchange. As vulgar as Howard gets, you'll never hear him cheer on uninvited pussy-grabbing.

To the untrained ear, Trump's locker room rhetoric may resemble Stern Show banter. But seasoned listeners can distinguish between words like Trump's, which appear to spring from a deep-seated hatred of women, and those coming from Howard, which emanate from a place of honesty and love. Even Rosie O'Donnell, a past target of some rough stuff from Stern, came around to celebrate him at his 60th Birthday bash. Meanwhile, Trump took time during the nationally televised debate to, again, take a shot at Rosie.

Howard recently provided the most eloquent rebuttal I've heard yet against those who plan to vote for neither Trump nor Hillary, but rather are going to vote their "conscience" and vote third party. Howard quickly called bullshit on this nonsense and decimated its reasoning. He correctly explained to his many listeners that a vote for anyone other than Hillary Clinton is a vote for Trump. Stern knows when to stop joking.

Howard Stern's life demonstrates that discipline and hard-work, infused with honesty, humor and a kind heart, can lead to great success and public good. So, while Howard's Presidency is just a dream, we can still hold his life up for admiration. He can be your hero. He's mine.

Political Sphere

We typically think of the political "spectrum" as representing the differences between liberals on the "Left" and conservatives on the "Right." 

But this linear view fails to emphasize an important distinction that exists within both the Left and the Right: Blind Belief vs Rational Skepticism. If we add this dimension, the political world is better represented by a sphere divided into four quadrants:

Blind believers refuse to compromise, even when confronted with contrary evidence. Blind believers move forward motivated by the faith in their own beliefs. 

Rational skeptics willingly admit when the 'other side' has valid points and they keep open the possibility that they may be wrong. Rational skeptics move forward by evaluating and selecting the most logical approach or answers. 

To be clear, this is not the same as being a "moderate" versus being "extreme." 

Rather, there is a fundamental difference between a Blind Believer and Rational Skeptic akin to the difference between religious belief and the scientific method. Skepticism is a process for analyzing a belief. Skeptics attempt to use an objective thought process when evaluating public policy. Blind believers borrow a set of ideas from someone else and defend those beliefs with great fervor regardless of the evidence.

To be sure, we all do some things motivated by our unquestioned beliefs, while some of our actions are carefully considered. It is an internal spectrum as much as it distinguishes those within different political groups.

In this election cycle, the Left's blind believers rallied behind Bernie Sanders, an enigmatic and energetic idealist who promised free healthcare, free college and efforts to "save the planet." 

But the Left's rational skeptics supported Hillary Clinton, whose views and actions suggest she better understands that politics is not religion, but the difficult art of reconciling conflicting public interests.

On the Right, you have no trouble finding the blind believers, strongly represented by the entire Republican Party and its multitude of Presidential candidates. 

Donald Trump may not believe (or even understand) traditional conservative political philosophy, but he resides firmly in the "believer" quadrant because he blindly believes in his own abilities and intellect. He does not let rational coherence interfere with his proclamations.

Rational skepticism arrives in conservative political philosophy under the guise of the "Libertarian." My conservative friends who have long declared they are "Republicans" now succumb to my arguments with, "well, I'm not so much a Republican anymore as I am a 'Libertarian." And this may be the long awaited Third Party that finally gains traction.... 

At least it appears that Gary Johnson, the "Libertarian" candidate, fits better in the conservative rational skeptic category than any other current Presidential candidate. He's willing to look at the evidence against the "War on Drugs," for example, and come to the conclusion it is a failure. But he does appear to reside firmly in the magical effects of budget cutting camp.  His website suggests we can go from a $503 billion deficit to a balanced budget basically overnight without reeking economic havoc. He has other questionable ideas too. But he and the Libertarians appear to arrive at their policy views through a rational process. This is rational skeptic conservatism. There is hope.

But there are few rational skeptic politicians. Most reside in the blind believer category, which should not be surprising because blind believers always have a better answer. Many will claim to lead by their "gut" or divulge they seek guidance from a "higher power." Trump, of course, loudly boasts that he's going to do better than Clinton because, well, just "trust me...." 

Blind believers are easy to spot because they frame complex issues in overly-simplistic terms, especially when pointing out perceived threats. 

Trump: "Trump is calling for the total and complete shut down of all Muslims entering the United States." 

Sanders: "The greed of Wall Street and corporate America is destroying the fabric of our nation." 

By not dwelling upon potentially contrary facts or nuance, blind believers feed off their own certainty, believing in their absolute righteousness and their opponents' absolute evil. There's no room for middle ground and the onus is on "them," and not ever ourselves. 

The blind believers on both the Left and Right present a huge threat to society and their danger is compounded during times of unrest or uncertainty. It is in these times that, at best, bad public policy is formulated, or, at worst, brutal dictators emerge. History is replete with blind believers who convinced us they could make us all great again, but only if we follow their rules....

But the good news is that skeptics on both the Left and Right share more in common than they know: Rationalism may diverge at moments, but it converges over time. In other words, smart people can disagree on the correct public policy, but given enough time, the correct policies prove themselves and no one analyzing the evidence can disagree. Rational skepticism is a process that eventually reveals truth. 

Inserting the notion of rational skepticism into the political discussion may offer some hope to suppress the appeal of the blind believer's promises.  

We voters should look toward politicians who acknowledge their own limitations and who are willing to compromise, regardless of their political party. This is a sign of wisdom, the essence of rational skepticism. 

We need to fight our own internal blind belief that sometimes wants us to vote for the super confident macho guy. Once upon a time the biggest ape among us was usually the best choice for leader. But we live in a different world today. We need to look out for our own 21st Century self-interests and seek out competent rational skeptics to lead us through these challenging times.