IF WE HADN’T DONE WHAT WE DID,
‘IT  WOULD HAVE BEEN  WORSE’
IS NEW MILLENNIUM MANTRA
 
By David Maril
 
If you make decisions, you no longer have to admit when you are wrong.

It’s always been rare for people, whether they are powerful leaders or at the bottom of the political ladder or totem pole, to admit when they have made a mistake or take the blame for a decision that proves to be wrong.

This is even more true today where the emphasis too often is taking credit when a venture goes well and finding someone else to blame when things fail.

However, the necessity of finding scapegoats is diminishing.  Today we have an updated version of avoiding the blame game that is gaining universal acceptance.

It’s easy.

When anyone questions a bad decision or a failed policy, you simply say that things would have been even worse if the action hadn’t been taken.

For example, no matter how hard journalists try to get former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to admit they were wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, they will insist Saddam Hussein was a bad man and things would have been worse if we hadn’t overthrown the dictator.

If you criticize President Barack Obama for forcing the government to waste money on a solar energy company that failed, the answer is, things would be worse if this hadn’t been done because we need to encourage development of environment-friendly power.

When critics of the economic stimulus plans pushed by both Bush and Obama say this has slowed the economic recovery, supporters argue things would have been worse and we would have fallen into a recession if the presidents’ actions hadn’t been taken.

Perhaps this is right. It isn’t always incorrect to say a move needed to be done even if it didn’t completely solve the problem.

But when this type of justification is used all the time, it makes you very skeptical. None of us is perfect and we all make mistakes. But what type of credibility and respect can leaders expect to have when they look for scapegoats and make excuses every time there is a problem?

When was the last time you ever heard someone step forward and say, “To be blunt, I made a bad decision”?

IF ALL ELSE FAILS

Instead we’ll hear the decision-maker say they were given bad or inaccurate information. Or the plan wasn’t executed properly by someone lower down the chain of command. And if all else fails: “It would have been worse if they hadn’t done what they did.”

If pressed for a more specific answer, the reply usually is that the inside information the public isn’t privy to indicated it would have been a catastrophe if the measures were not taken.

In politics, this provides terrific cover for whoever is in power but frustrating for the loyal opposition.

No matter how much criticism the Washington politicians hear about our rights of privacy being compromised in the name of national security, there’s always a congressman like Maryland’s C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger coming forward to tell us that if these extreme measures were not taken, we would have had more terrorist attacks in this country.

Maybe he’s right. But how do we know?

Gov. Martin O’Malley is a master at turning a bad situation into something he can take credit for because “it could have been worse.” It was amazing he was able to keep a straight face actually making a case that he and his local government officials prevented an even bigger corruption problem in the recent Baltimore City Jail prisoner-security guard scandal by handling the situation the way they did.

If you question Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives John Boehner about Congress wasting time on trying to repeal Obamacare and not dealing with immigration, he’ll tell you that things would be worse if the Senate and Obama were able to push their liberal agenda through.

This “things would have been worse” game plan is becoming a worldwide epidemic. In Egypt, for instance, the army’s overthrow of the country’s legitimately elected president is defended by many supposed advocates of democracy as the right thing to do because things would have been worse if military action hadn’t been taken.

A HUGE LAWSUIT LOOMS

Some of this refusal to step forward and accept accountability is caused by our litigious society. If a physician admits a mistake, a huge lawsuit looms. If a financial advisor takes responsibility for a client buying the wrong stocks, he or she might need to hire a bodyguard.

But when leadership decisions are made in government or the workplace, it would be refreshing if leaders took a little responsibility.

We’ve all experienced bosses who somehow survive when they shouldn’t. I once worked for a newspaper editor who was clueless when it came to understanding content and what readers wanted. But when questioned why the publication had lost over half its circulation while in his charge, the person answered it would have been even worse if the steps he took hadn’t been taken.

All of us working there knew that was a lot of nonsense but the owners were mesmerized by this creative defense.

It’s hard not to give in and follow this new strategy. If you can’t beat something, join it, and start making these types of excuses yourself.

Next time you are criticized for reporting half an hour late for work, tell the boss that if it hadn’t been for your driving skill, resourcefulness and determination you would have been two hours late because of the terrible traffic instead of just 30 minutes.

If a decision you make ends up costing the company extra money, you can claim it would have been more costly if the move hadn’t been taken.

You can even turn it around when criticized for not taking action. You simply state the outcome would have been far worse if you had been decisive and made a move.

Apparently if they can’t prove you wrong, you are always right.
 
davidmaril@hermanmaril.com
 
“Inside Pitch” is a weekly opinion column written for Voice of Baltimore by David Maril.
 
EDITOR’S NOTE:  IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE

This week’s “Inside Pitch” column puts Voice of Baltimore in mind of a somewhat risqué joke about a small town sheriff who was famous for saying “It could have been worse” every time he surveyed a crime scene.

So early one afternoon when two of his deputies were called out to investigate a report of a half-dressed man and woman lying dead in bed of gunshot wounds, and a second man dead on the floor next to them with a .44 Magnum at his side, the deputies immediately labeled it a double-murder/suicide.

And then proceeded to make a wager about what would happen when the sheriff arrived later on the scene.

“I’ll bet you a hundred dollars,” said one of the deputies. “When the sheriff gets here he’ll say, ‘It could have been worse.’”

“No way!” the other deputy declared. “There are three people dead in this room. There’s blood all over the place. Nothing could possibly make this situation worse.”

So they made the bet. And when the sheriff arrived and surveyed the scene, sure enough he said: “This is obviously a murder/suicide. The woman’s husband arrived home unexpectedly, caught his wife in bed with the other man and shot and killed them both. Then he turned his gun on himself.

“But as bad as this is, it could have been worse.”

“How so?” asked the shocked deputy who had bet against the sheriff’s reaction. “What could possibly be worse than three bodies lying dead in the same house, the result of a jealous rage?”

“I’ll tell you,” said the sheriff. “If this had been yesterday, that’d be me lying dead in that bed!”
 
N.B.:  VoB apologizes if we’ve offended any readers’ sensibilities. But we stand behind our decision — Had we decided not to tell the story… it would have been worse.  😛
 
CHECK OUT LAST WEEK’S “INSIDE PITCH” COLUMN:  click here
…and read previous Dave Maril columns  by clicking here.