A Visit With Henry

Well over a decade had passed since my last serious sojourn to the pond so, when wandering nearby, I couldn't help but stopping to inquire whether memories of past visits remained valid. As you know, a long and thoughtful rumination at the site isn't as easy as many think and most, except for that obligatory trek as first year college students, talk about tramping so far from town rather than really slogging through the woods.

Much sooner than expected, I found myself tiptoeing along the right of way peering across the short reach of the pond toward the house and helloed. As to everyone, the occupant was most welcoming to this pilgrim.

The journey was not made in order to compare my life in Virginia near the seat of government in Washington with his in New England but such weighing was inevitable, doubly so as people abiding within shouting distance of the pond are considerably closer in habit to me than him. As you well know, his opinions were more than a little strong when he penned them and how things were proceeding near the Capital, or in Concord for that matter, this day might well have been upsetting.

His view that man needs no more than a savage's wigwam to satisfy his need for shelter is compatible with my own - at its most basic level. That his neighbors' houses, thought immodest by the Henry's standards, have since he commented trebled or quadrupled in size and in the number of rooms to make way for half the number of offspring would have caused consternation, but all was put easy when it became clear - at least to me - that his thesis that we enslave ourselves to our dwellings remains alive and valid.

Just think of how he might react to the thought of village women transporting their miniscule number of children in self propelled wagons with the power of more horses than the train engine that passed by his house each day?

There was little need to shatter his world concerning the news that still drives the universe beyond the wood. He observed that the need to know of another crime in Concord was of no use to anyone. For me to agree but then to double the ante by describing the present mantra of, "If it bleeds, it leads," would have been too much to swallow. At that moment, a jet flew overhead but it seemed to make no impression on anyone but me.

Needless to say, if the changes in our customs of housing might create havoc with the thinker's pondering, how could I ever explain to him or anyone the latest in apparel? The solid common sense prescriptions in clothing that he espoused were timeless, and I had a difficult time picturing him at ease on Casual Friday. The subject was dropped even from my mind as the possible outburst might well have shaken the house off its foundation and created apoplexy in my host.

Shifting to the natural world, I felt my thoughts on what had transpired since his observations would be both interesting and not unsettling. That woodchucks still attack town gardens and foxes are prospering even more than when he penned his lines would certainly be of great interest. I skirted the issue of how deer had virtually taken over the woods and the gardens since their enemies had been routed and that some of his neighbors seemed more concerned for the safety and freedom of these ruminants than for the balance of nature which had long been toppled in these parts.

Henry pointed out that deer had been exterminated from the woods around Concord. Obviously, he would have little difficulty in understanding that we'd persecuted their enemies to extinction and our mark on the land had favored the deer more than other species. But knowing his respect for hunters and woodsmen he would have had no difficulty in having them culled to reasonable levels. Since my host had little qualms about dragging pouts from their place at the bottom of the pond and filleting them for the skillet, I have no doubt that his support would have been with the hunter rather than those intent on protecting what have become vermin of our own creation.

Pouts, now that's a term. Like Henry, I fished for horned pouts as a boy in Massachusetts and never heard them called anything else, but they're bullheads or catfish now. I wondered if he'd recognize these names but soon relaxed, knowing that he knew both the proper and common name of every species that ever swam, flew, or walked these parts.

He walked the roads to town and trekked the dark paths through the woods in all seasons. As the miles passed, he observed and watched and thought and set the stage for his great gifts to me - and you. And back at the house in the quiet of the evening he made sweet music on his flute, notes that gave him ease from his labors. I wonder what he would think of today's practice of passively listening to music, heads bobbing like shore birds to the heavy beat as lives fritter away.

You know he considered Irishman with more than a little prejudice concerning their religion and its impact on their thinking process, and I wondered if he would have suffered some guilt on learning that more than a few of the descendants of these shanty dwellers were intent on understanding his lessons. After taking my leave, I concluded that he was more than flexible enough to cope with such changes.

Pondering the changes in Concord since first learning of his adventures, had I truly simplified my existence? Had I thought? Most important, since, "in the long run men hit only what they aim at, therefore, though they should fail immediately, they had better aim at something high." Had I aimed high? As to the first question, perhaps not so much as I should have. The second, I hope so, but, obviously not as deeply as I should have. And the third, yes, emphatically! In my writing I do aim high. Whether the target has been struck matters far less than having joined the contest intending a bull's eye.

Imagine a man less than half my age wrestling with the questions that have challenged the best of our species and inviting us all to join him in his walks. I’m retired now and freer because of it. Perhaps I should moved to a garret years earlier, but that's the past and, as we all know, even God can't change that. My house is not immodest and my car coughs and sputters, but I could have done with less and gotten on with writing. On the other hand without these visits each decade or so, I might be an even greater tool of my tools.

I took my leave of Henry and his Walden Pond and placed the volume back in its cherished place and wondered if our paths might cross again? What was my gain this time? Oh yes, "Simplify, simplify, simplify."

Epilogue

Without conscious knowledge that 2004 is the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Walden, I plucked it off my bookshelf. Naturally, within ten minutes I was, like a Walden pout, hooked.

As I neared the end of the book, I happened to catch Diane Rhem's show on National Public Radio celebrating the anniversary of the publication. Her three guest were wonderful and described many things about Thoreau that either I didn't know or had failed to remember.

Most importantly the highly qualified panel described how much Thoreau had influenced their lives and how influential the book had been on many who had long forgotten its words. As I was in the process of such an epiphany, I was disappointed that the show had to end, ever.

I cannot begin to describe how so many of Henry's observations - even though their source had long faded from my active memory - had become part of my own thought process. This book is as influential as its admirers say. If you have never read it, read it! If you read it long ago, read it again!


Wildbill944

Hostile Takeovers and Other Government Fun

Among the most worrisome prospects facing middle managers, especially those who have made their way to within sight of the corner office are changes in top management and hostile takeovers. When the whisper of change reaches the ears of mid-level executives, the need for ant-acids quickly increases.

Few well ensconced employees embrace organizational change. The devil they know is better than the one they fear. Corporate America's middle managers quake at the thought of turnover above them. Their positions will be in play when the new broom starts down the hall, and they suffer angst over all aspects of their lives. They even ponder the notion of life without the comforting embrace of mother corporation.

Such anxiety in the face of major change is not unique to the private sector. Government managers in local, state and federal agencies suffer stress that is very much akin to their corporate cousins. This may come as a shock to many members of the public who've been told that government service is safe from the pains of market oriented institutions but it is a fact.

This commentary will be confined to the federal government in Washington, but similar stresses take place in the regional offices and in state and local agencies as well. During my long career, I worked in each of these types of organizations and, while a practitioner and not a scholar, feel that I'm not too far off in speculating about the entire spectrum.

To tell the truth, government - especially in the headquarters of agencies and most importantly in those offices that formulate and communicate policies - is populated by an ambitious breed of public servants that yearns at least as fervently as those in private sector to rise and compete for the ear of top management. This, of course, is a far cry from the stereotypical slackers who in public imagination populate government service.

You may think that hostile takeovers of the government do not happen or that they occur only every eight or, at most, every four years, but that simply isn't the case. And after the politicians point with pride or view with alarm, the voters flip their coins and a new crew determined to make its mark descends upon the mass of quietly desperate bureaucrats.

The average tenure of presidential appointees to sub-cabinet positions is a little less than two years. Think of it, a new vice-president for sales every two years; that would disrupt any company. Even more shocking, ponder the hiring of all of your senior executives from outside the firm. Obviously, when things go radically wrong, your firm may look afar to hire new management, but this is done with full knowledge that the institution will be seriously disrupted for sometime after the shake up.

Yet top ranks in government are shaken and new outside executives are brought in to run organizations with multi-billion dollar budgets almost every two years. That's one reason for what is perceived to government inefficiency - just one, I grant you. This article is not designed to make you feel sorry for career government managers but, rather, to provide you with insight into a world that you may not know is even there.

A couple of exceptions are in order. Agencies whose missions are perceived to be vital to the nation are spared more than those whose objectives do not coincide with the philosophies of the administration in power even though that sometimes proves to be erroneous. Thus, the FBI, State, and Defense are more insulated from the rigors of constant reorganization than the Environmental Protection Agency, Housing and Urban development, parts of Health and Human Services, and other 'soft' - I leave the term for your defining, at least in this piece - agencies. The debate ongoing as these words are written on the intelligence agencies demonstrates that insulation from such rigors do not always yield the desired results. This undercuts my premise but bear with me.

Government executives are, in my view, a strange combination of bold and fearful. While it was long my thesis that the major difference in the managers, public and private, was the door they chose to enter when their preparation loosed them into the market, time and experience have shifted my opinion to some degree.

Obviously, the goals in the private sector are far easier to define. Even I can understand words such as numbers, quotas, and profits. Ah, but doing good is so hard to define and quantify. This difficulty provides another causation of why government is considered so inefficient - just one more. Yet those who set the goals can do little better. Increasing home ownership or reducing homelessness are worthy objectives and committing millions or billions to those ends are the best legislators can do. How many homeless were housed as a result of a given law as compared to another group that lost their dwellings because of other public policy is grist for many a talking mill. Surely, you'll grant that in selling hotdogs or mattresses it's easier to judge performance than in doing the people's business.

So we've established - haven't we? - that we have a new management team that views its employees, especially those who most closely supported its failed predecessors, with some suspicion and a group of middle managers whose fear is tending them toward paralysis might not be a pretty sight. Each time one group reaches out to the other, past gaffes and history get in the way. So the leaders seek out younger more vital workers who seem ready and eager to assist them in achieving mighty objectives. A new group in harness is on its way to glory but with the baggage of prior wars still on board - but shifted to the side. In the public sector, the outs are shunned with all the shame that goes with it. More inefficiency, wouldn't you agree?

As this process is repeated, sometimes for and sometimes against the public interest, new leadership comes and goes. Middle managers are sent to the wilderness up the hall where they can contemplate their sins, and new Young Turks and revamped heroes from prior administrations fill their places. I won't talk of scores settled and other unpleasantries that are more personal than business like, but with each rise and fall, the insecurities of those who chose the public life become more apparent.

The new paladins recognize that they are there because of the shortcomings of their predecessors. Only fools would rush in to embrace those managers who brought the disgraced executives to grief.

There, now you know the sad life of public managers. I'm sure that your tears are for them and not yourself and other taxpayers.