Between the Columns

Reading the signs

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 03:26:00 +0000

The media generally wears political bifocals... they can see clearly only when they fit into the pre-determined focal lengths: left vs. right, Dem vs. Pub, big vs. small, partisan vs. bi-partisan.

While this creates clarity and surety (attributes that people prefer in our cultural narratives), it doesn't always serve us well. Sometimes, there are complex dynamics at play -- dynamics that are "messy." And when political reporting skirts these complexities, we get the equivalent of listening to music in "mono" (vs. stereo), or watching a television show in black & white (vs. color). We lose critical dimension that tells us a lot more about what we're observing.

In the most recent incident of this bifocalization of politics, the narrative has been painted opportunistically by the Republicans that, well, Democrats are back in power... and look at how they spend your tax dollars!

And Obama and the Democrats fell into the that brand trap so easily and readily, it's almost as if they hadn't been aware of their brand problems regarding spending and taxes over the past, say, 40 years.

So, predictably, the media "reports" what the Republicans decry, and with no meaningful counter-narrative from the Democrats, the dye has been set in the media's eyes: Obama's popularity is fading because of how he mishandled the health care reform debate, and that he didn't focus enough on "jobs, jobs, jobs."

But, there is a lot more color around the politics du jour than is being painted. There are many sources of social noise that simply can't be located when listening to politics in mono.

What is really at issue here is a trend that has been tragically under-reported: the economic shift that started in the early 1990s and continues at a rapid pace today: the globalization of the economy.

"Outsourcing" has been the evil mask we're affixed to this overarching dynamic. The populist media found an easy, comprehensible target and flooded our national narrative with outsourcing as the evil face of globalization.

Yet the outsourcing of jobs to developing countries is merely one facet of globalization's impact. The more systemic and troubling development (at least, for America) is that with capitalism, markets tend to become more efficient, and find equilibrium.   And as we continue to embark on global capitalistic endeavors and trade deals, America's disproportionate high standard of living is rubbing up directly against standards of living that, on average, are far, far lower almost anywhere else in the world.

The result? In an open, transparent market, America's standard of living is guaranteed to be reduced in the face of open competition from lower standard of living regions and countries.   We as Americans -- especially the politically potent of us -- are hooked on affluence. We believe as a culture (many religiously) that we are destined and chosen to live more secure, happier, plush lifestyles simply because we are American.

But since the early 1990's, reality is creeping up on us. Our global economic and moral hegemony is on the decline, and all we can really do is just hang on and try to delay the slide for as long as possible.

Which is why we have become so gosh-darned conservative and economically imbalanced over the years. Avoiding an uncertain and unflattering future is a conservative stance. And while most people would never articulate their fears and concerns the way I just did, I believe that people intuitively understand what's going on. But what they are doing politically is the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "la la la la la!" so as not to address these issues head-on. Because no matter what we do, the issues are going to reduce our standard of living for a long time -- and possibly permanently.

The irony is that a decline in our aggregate lifestyle will be the best thing that ever happened to this country. Our country has become a singularly-focused culture on wealth, wealth creation and wealth protection. This is quite unhealthy socially, and we are seeing the results of this social obesity throughout our system. People are much richer, yet much less happy. People have less time to enjoy life. Parents have less time to raise their children. Americans are becoming historically obese and overweight. Our culture of convenience has made us generally more lazy, and less fulfilled. And it can't existentially or morally be fulfilling when the affluent feel increasingly victimized by taxation as they turn a blind eye toward the plight of the poor and working class.

Nevertheless, nobody wants to slide toward less affluence, less protection and less economic freedom. Yet that is where we're heading. And it's because of this macro-social-economic trend that President Obama is having a difficult time running the country. Wall Street, realtors, small and large businesses alike are all on the lookout and grasping for the next scheme they can latch onto on the way down the economic slide -- any scheme that will prop them up long enough so that they can cash out and surf the decline in relative style.

You can't really blame these people and institutions for trying to scour the system for a few last-minute jackpots. It's the natural thing to do. And you can't really blame our political leaders for not being honest with us about the situation at hand (who would win on that platform?).   But I'd argue you can blame the media for not making this the narrative that we all need to discuss and chew on as a culture. At length. Only after mainstream America understands and comes to grips with the future will we have the fortitude to look for political leaders who will need to deal with the future as it's going to be -- not sell us a lie about our future.

I want to point out that I am not being a pessimist. I believe very strongly in the power and capability of Americans to innovate and create new, unprecedented value in the global marketplace. And I believe that our military might will keep the country quite relevant on the global stage.   But our ability to innovate and create new economic value has very little to do with the global lifestyle equilibrium being so out of whack for so long. With global trade, the equilibrium will inevitably slowly converge, with developing countries trending up toward average, and America trending down toward average.

This trajectory will be very good for the people in the world. More people will be lifted out of poverty as a result. We are embarking on a history transfer of wealth from America and The West to developing markets. And it's happening through the free markets and increasing trade -- not some socialist agenda.

The iSlate of the Union: Jobs v. Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Jon Deutsch) — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:31:00 +0000

In celebration of January 27 being a tremendously important day for both Steve Jobs and President Obama, Slate recently published a cute mash-up of Steve Jobs giving the State of the Union address.

This article led to a conversation I had with some friends around the importance of marketing, communications, (and frankly, hype) when it comes to not just consumer marketing, but political marketing.

A prevailing view in this conversation was that if Barack Obama would only frame his initiatives like Steve Jobs does, he’d be enjoying much more success after his first year in office.   Further, there was a strong belief that President Obama needs to demonstrate the kind of leadership that Jobs is famous for displaying at Apple. In other words, if Obama were to lead like Jobs, then Health Care Reform would be as successful as the iPod.   In other words, Obama’s policies need to “just work.”

There are a lot of similarities here, and I think there are plenty of politicians that can and should learn from successful marketers like Jobs. However, I am not convinced that passing “progressive” policy like health care reform is anything like selling an iPod. Similarly, creating progressive policy is nothing like developing any hi-tech gadget.

Creating and passing progressive policy requires a different type of leadership, because the dynamics could not be more different: With policy, you are forcing people to buy something. With product, you are asking people to buy something. True, if more policies were developed with the 'ask' mentality, they may have a higher chance of succeeding. But politicians in Washington know that, unlike an Apple project that is under wraps for years, making policy is pretty transparent, and allow Americans to weigh in on the design mid-way through the process. That of course has the effect of modifying the product and veering away from the original goals.   In other words, in order to make a legislative iPod, one would have to change the rules of law making.

Another difference between iPods and progressive policy is that, time and time again, progressive policy sets a course into new territory, and forces everyone to be part of the journey.   Not surprisingly, many who benefit from the status quo have no interest in mucking with success.   And if the majority of Americans benefit from the status quo in health care, good luck getting them to buy an upgrade.   Whereas if Apple gets 10% of a given market, it’s a huge commercial success. 10% approval ratings for health care reform would be seen as a complete flop.

None of this, however, excuses Obama and the Democrats for completely mucking up the health care reform process. They let themselves lose the public debate on the merits, and, worse, allowed themselves to fall into the 'means to an end' mentality that sent the policy off the rails, and gave their opposition much spark by crafting deals that resemble Mafia payoffs more than legislative horse trading.

A year ago, Barack Obama was inaugurated with a feel of Apple-like fanboydom surrounding him. Within that year, he "saved" the economy and the auto industry, and lost that argument with the majority of Americans. Soon, Jobs will be unleashing his latest achievement that has been years in the making, where he will likely be heralded as saving the publishing industry, just like he did the music industry with iTunes/iPod.

Seems to me that President Obama could learn a thing or two about publicity and story shaping from Jobs as they do seem to have a few things in common.

Progressives and their Long View

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 02:17:00 +0000

As President Obama's popularity dwindles from its highs not just a year ago, I am struck by an observation I have of many liberals and progressives that seems to be shared by Obama: the preference to focus on the future over the now.

And it's not just focus -- it's language, philosophy, and orientation. The progressive in us is the consummate planner; the part of us that looks to give up something now (time, resources, opportunities) in the hope of netting returns greater than the investment in the future.

One might call progressives "social investors" if one were a savvy marketeer.

Yet, investing is easier to do when it's you putting your own goods on the line to invest in your own future. Starting a business, investing in the stock market, investing in your child's future or well-being... these are investments that are fairly easy for each of us to make. Yet it gets a bit trickier when you're looking to commit 300 million people to a shared investment strategy.

And this is what President Obama is staring down right now -- a nation that is generally not too happy that he's planning their investment strategies for them. Be it Wall Street bail-outs, auto sector bail-outs, or even health insurance reform, a large swath of Americans just don't trust Government to invest for them.

Which brings me to some advice for President Obama (because we all know he reads this blog) and progressives at large: While you might be morally, ethically and strategically connected to investing for a brighter future, a large majority of Americans live in the now, care first-and-foremost about the now, and need to believe you share their interest in the now.

This means that while you plot and plan your social investment strategies, plans and policies, you cannot forget that the majority of people aren't there with you. They're here. And they want to believe their leaders see the world they see, and live in the world they live in.

Conservatives have the opposite problem, of course -- they live almost exclusively in the now and aren't big on social investment projects. They gain popularity readily because of this dogmatic pragmatism -- it's frankly the easier pill to swallow of the two philosophies.

Neither philosophy has exclusive rights to being perfect, of course. They both need to be balanced against each other so that we don't exclusively focus on today, and yet don't give up all of what we have today in exchange for tomorrow.   But what surprises me about the otherwise-savvy Obama is that he has put precious little effort into portraying his administration as one that cares deeply about today, and is carefully balancing it against the needs of tomorrow.

There's no doubt that the bulk of his campaign was all about investing in tomorrow, but the market collapse in 2008 (the same collapse that likely got him elected) trumped almost everything he was running on.   I'd make the case that he hasn't calibrated his message or policies enough to fulfill the evolving needs of a nervous nation that feels systemic economic change afoot, and really isn't sure where we're going to fit in when things eventually settle down.

People feel quite unsettled out there, and health insurance reform isn't the medicine they're looking for right now.   That will come as soon as they feel secure again in a job that doesn't have good enough health insurance.

Politics in 2009: A Review

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:48:00 +0000

First, let me apologize for the recent infrequency of blog posts. No excuses; just apologies. I will do my best to ramp back up to regular posts, and at the same time look for a larger "home" for Between the Columns so that I have an environment with real deadlines.

Now, onto a "politics in a nutshell" review of 2009:

President Obama was sworn into office, riding the coattails of a nation pinning their hopes on the notion that someone who seemed different would, indeed, be the difference they were looking for. Result: It's been different, but not nearly as much as his campaign intoned.
President Obama took "bold, sweeping" action (a style typified by George W. Bush) in the form of a large stimulus (ahem, reinvestment and recovery act) bill that instantly affixed him to the "big spending liberal" post that was sitting there, waiting for him. It also probably saved the country from a massive economic depression.
President Obama made a historic speech in Egypt about the Middle East; yet only the technocrats and historians listened and cared.
Sarah Palin quit being Governor of Alaska, while calling people who stay in their jobs the real quitters. Not sure if this was brilliantly stupid or stupidly brilliant. And that mobius strip of a conundrum is precisely why the media has a high on Palin.
Speaking of the media being stuck on Palin, Sarah becomes the first national political personality who uses Twitter and Facebook as her exclusive press secretary.
A spate of rigged economic bubbles, combined with about eight years of government mismanagement -- surprise! -- left an American public untrusting of big, distant institutions. Y'know, institutions like that federal government. The same government that handed billions of tax payer dollars over to other big, distant institutions ranging from investment banks to auto manufacturers. I'm stunned by the apparent lack of thought in the White House had around the transition to a new administration... that somehow Americans would so quickly begin trusting government to do "big things" like the stimulus and health care reform when it had just come off a run of Big Things Gone Bad.
All of this activity, combined with some latent racism and natural conservatism that occurs when people are under stress, helped launch the Tea Party movement. This movement has had a high participant-to-impact ratio, as the media became fascinated by this small contingent of loud, angry voices. This serves as an important reminder that squeaky wheels still do get the grease. Especially wheels that can are able to squeak through the regular daily squawking.
In case you missed it, the Tea Party gets higher approval ratings than Dems or Pubs in a national poll among independents.
Throughout the year, Dick Cheney grumbles aloud about how Obama doesn't do anything right, and is leading America into an untimely death. The media doesn't know what to do with a former VP who has become a bizarre caricature of his former self.
Amid the ugliness of a severely depressed economy, President Obama stood up and declared that he was going to fix healthcare. He then promptly sat down and let the old-school Dems fuss about it in Congress, annoying everyone in the process (including, in the end, his base).
Healthcare (ahem, health insurance) legislation hi-jinks, combined with double-digit unemployment and six-digit bonuses in recently-bailed-out-Wall-Street firms, sap the remaining mojo about of the Obama Presidency. Although we can see "change" from many different angles, it sure doesn't feel like "change" looking straight at it.
Obama tries a new tactic on handling terrorist attacks -- don't freak out. Well, apparently, Republicans are demanding that Obama freak out, so he capitulated and did a little freaking out. Then he got trashed for not freaking out soon enough, and then he got slammed for planning to try the failed terrorist in civilian court vs. military tribunals. It would be one thing to have a great debate on the pros and cons of trying a terrorist in court or military tribunal, but it's another to make it a political statement vs. a policy statement. If our parties can no longer talk about policy without embedding partisanship, then I'd have to say that they've overstayed their welcome. Policy is meat; partisanship is candy. Our politics and media have holes in their teeth, and are emaciated yet obese.

Kind of a depressing round-up for 2009, eh? Yes, this nutshell is reflective of my lens... a lens that had higher hopes for "year 1" of the era of Obama. A lens that sees the complexities of the issues we're up against, and the seemingly unwillingness of our society to be able to cope with these complexities through meaningful debate and reasonable resolutions, policies and project plans.

Here are some additional thoughts around why things don't feel so great on a macro scale:

America is depressed because we're letting ourselves down. Obama said it on the campaign trail -- and he was right: Change happens from the bottom-up, and each of us needs to make the changes we can in order for true, systemic improvements to occur in our culture. Yet, as President, I've heard and felt almost none of this sentiment from Obama. It's not like he's not trying to do the right thing... he certainly is. But he's doing it in what seems to be the most conventional, conservative approach he could take -- letting Congress drive the politics, and letting the opposition party continue to control the debate and tell the more compelling stories.

The leadership we need is not the kind that fixes the economy for us. The leadership we need is the kind that challenges us to fix the economy. It's our country; our economy; our values; our abilities; our limitations; our creativity; our resourcefulness; our fear; our fearlessness; our resoluteness; our inquisitiveness; our diversity; our conservatism; our liberalism; our tolerance. We've got a ton of all of it. We just need to be led to use what we got in more valuable, meaningful ways. When we do that, we'll feel better individually, and only then, feel better as a society.

So, with that, happy 2010, and here's to hoping that we collectively figure out that improving our society starts with improving ourselves.

The Politics of Patterns

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:15:00 +0000

Here is an interesting piece of research that just passed by my desk:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091117/lf_nm_life/us_workplace_leave

Here's a policy -- essentially allowing people to take care of themselves and loved ones -- that is likely seen as yet another left/right issue, where the left cares all about "people" and "their needs" and the right cares about "business competitiveness" and "lazy employees" taking advantage of the system.

Our political system is so predictable that it indicates to me that we are no longer really looking at issues anymore -- we're only looking at patterns.   And if we're looking at patterns, then what we're really doing is slotting in any given issue into a pre-defined template that has been established in prior political fights.

This reminds me of one of candidate Obama's key themes, which was that we keep on re-fighting old battles in this country, which is really not moving us forward.

We're kind of stuck.

Of course, there are real legitimate reasons for disagreement around a policy such as government-mandated sick leave rights for workers. But the legitimate reasons are largely based on institutionalized distrust of either side's ability to craft policy that doesn't serve their own power-bases' interest first over that of general society.

For instance, if Democrats craft this policy, it will likely not include enough protections for the small business owner to mitigate fraud and abuse of this new federally-mandated benefit. And, at a minimum, the Democrats won't frame the language as such to assuage Republicans that they "get" how much small business owners live in fear and distrust of any government control of how they run their businesses -- after all, many have put their entire economic future on the line with the risk of starting up a business.   And the punch line is that Republicans would never even think of crafting such a policy in the first place, as it would tarnish their brand credibility with their important small business and libertarian constituencies.

So, that covers the institutional problem with modern-day politics. Now let's briefly get into the dynamics of the policy debate itself:

Putting on the analytical hat, both sides have legitimate points: The research states that a healthier society provides more security to -- and freedom for -- workers, and the counter is that any federally-imposed mandate is ripe for abuse and fraud, and takes another bite out of the freedom of a small business owner to run their business as they see fit. Yet, I would argue that both sides wouldn't disagree that providing more flexibility -- nay, freedom -- for employees wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were no downside.

The difference between the two sides is in the assumption set. If Democrats are ever going to get pro-business and libertarian people on-board with these work/life balance policies, the policy needs to take in account the real issues with implementing a cushion for the workforce. These issues include people taking advantage of a cushion policy (imagine if 1/2 the employees see this as a federally-mandated 7-day paid vacation, thereby abusing the spirit of the law), and the perceptions that government-enforced policies take control away from the risk-taking, hard-working entrepreneurs (thinking primarily smallbiz here, as corporations can more easily withstand these types of policies). In addition, the symbolic nature of this type of government mandate rubs completely against the libertarian/small business culture in this country. Pro-worker policies also works against our not-so-honorable-yet-absolutely-real history of taking advantage of underprivileged immigrant groups. The other part of history -- the rise and successes of labor unions -- is not seen as so triumphant these days due to the overall poor image that unions now embody.

Yet, if there is a broad agreement that this research is correct -- that providing workers with more freedom to take care of themselves and loved ones while being employed is a good thing for our society -- then all the activity and politics around this issue will not be focused on what we agree upon; and the policy will be crafted around the politics of passage, not the original intent of the legislation.

This goes back to trust and powerful interest groups. In the end, the elected power base will typically push through good ideas, poorly.   Which, ultimately, makes the idea itself look bad. Which then informs the next debate.   Which, of course, loops us back to the notion that we're battling patterns at this point, not real problems.

So, I've now outlined my views on some of the systemic issues facing our current politics in the context of a single issue facing our society.   If readers have any ideas or suggestions on how to address the current situation, the blogosphere is listening...

The declining health of the health care debate

noreply@blogger.com (Jon Deutsch) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 02:32:00 +0000

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform has made the rounds on the Internets lately (over 1 million views, in fact). It takes a good conservative with solid beliefs like Rogers to effectively enunciate philosophical principles in a rational tone that doesn't slide into personal attacks or obvious hyperbole. I'm not sure if everyone can, but I can feel the common-sense-ness of his argument when I listen to him. Watch for yourself:

Yet, hyperbole is throughout Rogers' speech, but good luck finding someone to call him out on it. The reason? I'd argue that philosophical hyperbole is harder to notice, and is also more difficult to combat.   But that's why we have Between the Columns, right? Right.

With that, let's dissect Rogers' speech:

He starts by saying that the Democratic plan is "abandoning the very principles of America" by "punishing" the 85% of Americans that have health care insurance to expand coverage to the remaining 15% who don't.

Let's start with his so-called "principles of America" hyperbole. I just went through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and didn't see anything supporting his statement in our nation's principles. In fact, I did see in the preamble of the Constitution a little ditty where it says that we, the people are to "promote the general welfare," among other duties. Arguably, expanding health care coverage is well within our stated principles. But even if you disagree with this interpretation of the preamble, it's hyperbole to state outright as Rogers does that it's against our nation's principles.

Then there's the hyperbolic notion that supporting the less fortunate among us is "punishing" the majority of us who are insured.   I'm no religious scholar, but I believe most mainstream religions actually promote helping those who cannot help themselves. But I digress; let's cirlce back to the economic perspective: The cost of the emergency room visits for the uninsured cost us plenty economically, and the very notion that uninsured people wait too long to get help is unhealthy for all of us. They spread diseases more readily, and they cost us more when they get treatment.

By the way, Mr. Rogers, every corporation invests in underdeveloped areas of business by applying the profits of successful sectors disproportionally to these emerging areas. It's considered smart business in the world of capitalism; not punishment.

I will give Mr. Rogers the point that he is not given any choice but the Democrats' choice or nothing.   That's not hyperbole; that's what you get when you're the minority party. And Rogers has a fair point about needing a debate around how we solve this problem.

Regarding cancer treatment in the UK and Canada, it is true that America has the best oncology practice in the world. But that has absolutely nothing to do with who's paying the bill. The Democrats are proposing insurance reform, not health care reform. It's a huge difference, and one that is not nearly talked about enough! Government insurance will not change oncology health care in this country no more or less than any other private insurance company's rules apply to coverage.

This is so important, it's worth repeating: The plans on the table surround insurance not health care.   As a result, we can not compare these plans to socialized health care systems in Canada or Europe. It's apples and oranges, people. If you understand this concept, please forward this post around to your friends and family so that they can understand the difference.

Rogers then makes a point around Democrats "not letting the private sector fix this problem."   This is where Republicans are on shaky ground. The private sector is the sector that has been sending the health care system into the emergency room! The (impending) failure of the private sector is why President Obama and the Democrats are pushing for a proactive solution to this huge problem.   I think there should be a healthy debate around who is best suited to solve this health care problem, but I do not think is helpful when conservatives turn a blind eye to the very free market systems they cherish. No system is perfect -- not government, and not the free market. And if a particular sector is failing a system, then it's time to re-evaluate and try something new. In my view, that's innovation, not socialization.   And it should go both ways. And, for better or for worse, this nation elected Obama based in part on his health care reform position. Elections matter, and there should be a little democratic deference to this reality.

Rogers' last point about other government regulations as a tyranny of government control reminds me of the libertarian who told me that if the government would just leave him alone, he could go ahead and earn a decent living. I asked him what he did, and he said that he was in home construction. I wonder how good his business would be if the federal government would stop getting in home owner's shorts with that tax refund?

The Problem(s) with the "Public Option"

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 02:29:00 +0000

Obama's health care reform strategy seems to be finding most of the substantive contention around the "Public Option." I've got some bad news for the administration and its supporters: the Public Option's got issues. A lot of them. And they may even be terminal.

Here's a step-by-step guide to problems with Obama's cornerstone of health care reform:

The Words
The two words in play, public and option, do anything to advance the meaning of the concept they are attempting to describe. "Public Option" reeks of echo-chamber-liberalism-trying-to-market-itself-as-acceptable language that, no surprise, hasn't worked.

The first problem is the word "public." "Public" indicates it's for everyone... like how a public park is for anyone who wants to enjoy said park. Yet, as legislation is evolving, the "Public Option" would not be for everyone. It'd be for some people, and in most bills in development, there are strict limitations on who can join the "Public Option."

Then there's the word "option." This is supposed to indicate that we as Americans will have another option in health care insurance. Yet, again, many will not have this option because -- thanks to the conservatives being so worried that if everyone takes this "option" then there will be no more private insurance -- there are a lot of firewalls defined that don't allow the Public Option to be a viable option for many who currently are covered by private insurance.

The Meaning
"Public Option" not only means nothing without additional context, but it also evokes socialistic sub-contexts thanks to the use of "public." In the supposedly less marketing-savvy days, some really good marketing/branding folks devised the terms "Medicare" and "Medicaid." The talent that named these programs must have long past, because "Public Option" pales in comparison. What does "Public Option" mean with very little context? It means that the public has an option. Why would the 80% of Americans who already have insurance want to pay even more taxes for another option that most won't ever use?

What the public wants is lower costs, better quality and -- when possible -- broader access. None of these meanings are conveyed by the term "Public Option."

The Message
The messengers for the "Public Option" really fumbled by not having a cogent response to the detractors who state that if a public option is so good, then why would we need private insurance companies? Take this to the logical conclusion, and if the government can provide superior services, then we will end up with a "single payer" system, which the Obama administration promises is not on the docket (even though Obama himself claimed that he was personally a proponent for single-payer as a U.S. Senator a few years ago). So, the lack of a strong defense against this Trojan Horse concern has given the detractors credibility because they're gaining traction in the "what comes next" argument.

The Policy
I'm all for Obama's "thread the needle" approach to policy, but moderation is not really in the cards with the American culture these days. As much as the average American is centric/moderate, we as a culture reward Big Plans with Big Visions and Big Solutions. This is why so many embraced the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy even though it's since proven to be a quantifiable foreign policy disaster. We like compromise as a nation, but not at the expense of avoiding the tough choices needed to reform things. Americans like to vote for things that involve no pain, but we also like being told to suck it up and to be tough. The "Public Option" is really a middling policy that isn't really a Big Idea and really doesn't ask us to give much up.

Yet there is a more practical, systemic concern: As much as I think the free market has all but failed America in terms of health care insurance and cost containment, pitting a government plan against private industry is just not the right role for government. Government should not be competing with industry -- ever. It should be enabling economic growth, while protecting the rights of citizens, ensuring fairness, healthy competition, and taking responsibility for the administration of public good works. Under this model of government, health care reform should come in one of two flavors:

1. Go completely single-payer, where we extend the 6% administrative overhead of Medicare to replace the 20-30% overhead of private health care insurance companies. Leverage economies of scale and completely transform our health care system to align with the the notion that our health and well-being is more important than shareholder profits. Single-payer has shown to improve outcomes, life expectancy and costs in many nations already. Yeah, it's got its own problems, but better health care is better health care. And single-payer has proven out to provide better health care on a macro level.

- OR -

2. Play the full regulation card, where the government enforces strict regulations on a completely private health care system. This would keep everything in place as it stands today, but introduce new, tough "rules of the road" that all insurers must abide by, equally. This would include universal access to affordable insurance, no limits on pre-existing conditions, no dropping of coverage, etc. In other words, the government plays the role of citizen advocate and referee, and ensures that the business of health care insurance is more equally balanced between profits and keeping Americans healthy and alive. In addition, the government could and should enforce innovation in automation and administrative cost controls across insurance firms on behalf of citizens. This regulated industry approach has a lot of precedent, and would have the extra-super-double bonus of costing merely a fraction of adding a Public Option to the mix.

Either of these approaches to policy could work, and each has its pros and cons. But at least both of them present a level of policy clarity that people can better understand, contemplate and opine upon. The "Public Option" is so vague and un-descriptive that the idea of "death panels" has risen from the murkiness. It might feel better to blame Sarah Palin (who made Obama's so-called "Death Panels" famous) for derailing the dialog around health care reform, but I'd argue that it's the echo-chamber-policy-wonks who are to blame for poorly naming, positioning and selling health care reform in the name of the "Public Option."

Don't get me wrong -- there are a lot of benefits to the Public Option scheme. It's just that these benefits are not seeing the light of day, in part, due to the issues outlined here.

The Rahmifications of Emanuel

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:41:00 +0000

Soon after Barack Obama won the election, he began announcing his cabinet and staff picks. As soon as I heard that Obama had picked Rahm Emanuel to be his Chief of Staff, I twitched in disbelief. Really? Mr. Hope and Change meets Mr. Fuck and You?

Many friends (and the media) tried to comfort me with the notion that Mr. Nice Guy needed Mr. Tough Guy to rattle the cages and shake the congressional tree. OK, I thought, maybe Obama needs an experienced and feared heavy to cut through the nonsense on Capitol hill.

Now that we're 200 days into the Obama administration, I'm starting to really think that Rahm might be the kryptonite to Obama's Superman. Obama's popularity has been plummeting rapidly over the summer, and his handling of the health care debate is in Bush/Cheney territory in terms of popular support.

The tone was set early by Rahm himself when he said that a crisis should never go to waste. This is such a cynical, anti-Obama campaign sentiment, that it's remarkable that Obama kept him on. But, like all leaders, Obama I'm sure has fallen for the confident, get-it-done, damn-the-torpedoes, I've-been-here-before Chief of Staff that says "don't worry, boss, I've got it all under control for you." Every boss wants to hear that, and will give a lot of leash as a result.

So, here we are, with Mr. Hope and Change now defending his citizenship, his economic stimulus package, his bail-out of GM and of Wall Street, and now his attempt to reform health care. My, how far he's fallen from election day.

If I were to advise the President, I'd offer the following suggestions:

1. Identify and label the pillars that comprise your domestic agenda. Under, the "Rebuilding America" agenda, form the 5 pillars that are critical to success:

Making high quality health care affordable for everyone
Transforming America's energy policy from black to green
Making education a strategic advantage for America's children
Regulate the financial industry to avoid future malfeasance
Regain our respect and position as a global leader

2. Frame all initiatives, laws, policies and speeches in one of these 5 pillars.
3. In every televised event, put up signage representing one of the pillars to reinforce the theme of the event
4. Whenever attacked, go back to the baseline theme (above) of the issue at hand, and use the same words each time. For instance, if someone says that you're trying to socialize health care, your response would be "No I'm not; I'm trying to make high quality health care affordable for everyone."
5. Continually remind people -- often -- of what you've done so far in each pillar in an effort to fulfill your commitments you made in your campaign. If someone asks why you're looking at health care now instead of the economy, your response should be "because in my campaign, I promised this country that I'd fix health care. I'm not going to back down from my commitments."

Why am I attempting to give the President tips on my blog? Because I think that the approach the administration is taking now (along with congress) might actually damage his ability to lead as President. This is not good for anyone. I've heard that, due to the lack of support from even some Democrats, Obama is not opposed to pushing through his agenda with 50 Senate votes (a procedural vote allows him to do this). This might pass the law, but it will put a large dent in Obama's campaign promise of a "new type of politics in Washington." This kind of hit to his brand will be very difficult to recover from.

So, Mr. President: In the name of following through on our campaign commitments, I advise you not to follow Rahm's advice, and not to accept his style in passing health care reform. I expect that you, as President, will have a strong enough center to use your natural positive leadership skills to successfully navigate this political maze. You cannot afford to approach this the way Rahm would. Yes, he might be effective, but any success achieved his way will exact a much larger toll on your personal brand equity.

The iPhone, AT&T and the role of government

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 17:26:00 +0000

A recent TechCrunch article effectively outlines where private industry and government collide as they describe the situation behind Apple (and/or ATT's) rejection of an iPhone application written by Google that would circumvent the wireless voice network that AT&T provides iPhone users. Of course, this application still relies on AT&T's wireless data network (when WiFi is not available), but it really does serve as a disruptive technology as it replaces AT&T's phone number and voice telecommunications infrastructure. Think of this Google app as a kind of Skype of mobile phones.

This situation belongs on Between the Columns because of the role that government is playing in this situation. Here we have multiple companies developing and innovating around technologies using their own investment dollars, navigating a tricky landscape of competition and cooperation in order to profit and serve their customers' needs. As they make decisions that are best for them to protect their investments and strategies, the government jumps in, feeling the need to protect consumers from large companies who can use their dominant positions to limit consumer choice and hinder innovation.

It's fairly easy to presume that liberals and progressives would support this type of action. After all, the progressive mantra is to create equality and fairness wherever there is a systemic imbalance. My question is: where does this role fit into the conservative philosophical framework? Presumably, this is government interfering with the free market, which would be bad. But if the government does not intercede, then one big company -- Google -- will be limited in its ability to grow and prosper in the mobile internet market. Is that fair? Was it right/fair for the government to break up AT&T in 1982? Did that unleash new industries, competition and fairness in the marketplace? Or was it wrong for government to get involved in a successful, dominant company that had earned its dominance by being first-to-market? Should AT&T in 1982 simply have been better regulated? When is regulation not enough to solve a problem?

This actually introduces some interesting questions as we consider the current health care reform debate. For instance, a conservative commenter here at Between the Columns asks why health care reform simply can't be a regulation activity vs. the larger, systemic change Democrats are pushing for with a "public plan."

The perils of privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 02:04:00 +0000

As the debate on health care continues to unfold, we're hearing increasing amounts of concern (some of it bordering on lunacy) on the Right due to their fear of anything that the big, bad government might get its grubby little hands on.

This made me think about comparing apples to apples. The reason why conservatives can get all bent out of shape over the bills being developed in congress now is because the government has an obligation to expose its bills in public. The government's business is our business, so we, the people, get to comment, protest or agree with what we're seeing. This very transparency creates political energy, which directly evolves the bills in progress.

This is what is called democracy. Ain't it great?

Let's now look at the comparison: back when non-profit health plans started becoming for-profit, and health insurance transitioned into "managed care." When that reform was happening, it was being run by private industry. Nobody got to comment on the strategy or plan. And the public was not privy to the details outlining all the ways they planned on profiting off of our health. Nobody was aware of the magic number CFOs were telling CEOs that was the economic value of a customer's life. Yet, these discussions must have happened because if you're in the business of selling health insurance, you're most certainly doing big-time actuarial stuff to ensure you're turning a consistent profit and healthy margins.

So, what's the difference here? That the big, bad untrustworthy government is required to share with we, the people, the health care plans they're developing -- in progress as well as when they're fully complete. Meanwhile those private firms that we trust now with our health care insurance aren't required to divulge anything to us in terms of their detailed business plans because, well, they're businesses.

The end result is that this very transparent system that is designed to serve the people is being demonized by the Right, and the very opaque, profit-driven system we have today is seen by many as a holy grail that we dare not touch or threaten with a more transparent, government-based solution.

It all makes you wonder how the debate would have evolved if the same level of transparency was required when managed care was being devised in the early 1970s...

The politics of funding, part 2: outing deficit hawk hypocrites

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 13:35:00 +0000

Check out the info-graphics about the U.S. debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

So, in these info-graphics, we have two somewhat competing messages:

First, in terms of actual amount of debt, it's staggeringly off the charts. A real "gulp" moment for fiscal conservatives. And probably a serious warning signal for Americans in general -- both from a national debt perspective, as well as a personal debt perspective.

Yet the second graph indicates a rather sobering context: that as a percent of GDP, we're right at about average when looking at the ratios for the past 70 years. Of course, the trend line does not look all that promising, but in terms of actual reality right now, this is not "sky is falling" debt ratios like you might have heard about in the media.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I feel this point needs to be re-iterated to counter the central political meme that Obama and the Democrats can't be trusted with the debt, and that somehow it's their policies that are somehow going to drive this country off a fiscal cliff. Whereas the facts clearly indicate that the serious trend up in national and public debt happened under G.W. Bush with a Republican congress.

I will openly accept that the Republican governance that got us where we are now does not give Obama unfettered privilege to spend like money grows on trees (though, I hear it does grow freely at the Fed). But what these charts do tell us is that it's not Obama's fault that we are where we are, and that the Democratic way of managing the nation deserves a few years of "hands off" politics to see if their way will lay a better foundation for growth and prosperity than the Republican way has. Yet, that is clearly not how things are shaping up, are they? Unfortunately, the Republicans are showing America that they are out for political blood more than they're really out for working with the elected President to advance the policies he was elected into office to enact.

What does this mean? It means that all the rancor about the deficit, socialism, and whatnot is purely political, and not patriotic. A real American patriot would give Obama and the Democrats at least four years to turn the ship around before bashing any specific approach. The current leadership has earned the right to use their management philosophy to right the ship through a democratic process that we all support. Should Republicans just sit back and sip martinis as Democrats go to town? Of course not. Republicans should be critiquing everything... they should be trying to influence the minority view. But I think we all get the sense that this is not how they're handling their minority position. They are screaming from the rooftops, calling Sotomayor a racist, calling Obama a socialist, and calling Pelosi a loser. Really? Is this how our founding fathers would have wanted our minority party to behave?

The Republicans who are all bent out of shape now were far-too-quiet when the debt lines on those graphs were spiraling out of control when "their way" to manage things was in season. If I would have heard the same level of rage since 2001 -- when those debt numbers were trending upward in scary amounts -- then I would give Republicans the floor and thank them for their patriotic oversight of our national financial well-being. But they didn't (at least, most of them didn't -- John McCain was a lone Republican voice in 2003 when he opposed tax cuts during war-time spending). And because they weren't deficit hawks then, they really have very little patriotic credibility now as they squawk on about Democratic spending plans. What they're doing is playing pure politics -- they're not really trying to help Obama govern the country better.

This political dynamic is a national shame. This top-line analysis should be followed-up with some data around how each Republican congressman (and talk-show host) talked about deficit spending from 2003-2008, to prove my point that what they are doing right now is disingenuous, yet is presented to us as patriotic. Effective, efficient and world-class health care (and a new, green economy, and equal opportunity and economic stability) is far too important to our national health and well-being to be poisoned by cheap, partisan political pandering.

It's a throw-down here at Between the Columns: I'm calling shenanigans on the deficit hawk hypocrites.

Just to be clear, this is not an endorsement of super-sized deficit spending, nor is this an endorsement of any Obama or Democratic policy. Nor am I saying that Democrats aren't just as hypocritical around other issues. But I am saying that when our current governing majority is trying to push this country forward in the ways they believe are best -- and they've been elected into power in satisfyingly-large majorities to do so -- they have earned the right to give it a go without false outrage confusing the electorate and hindering the amount of change that Obama promised he'd bring to America.

The politics of funding stuff

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:02:00 +0000

I believe we've found the Obama weak spot with the American appetite for change: spending money. All the polls indicate that Obama is struggling to keep moderates in his camp with his borrow-heavy approach to problem solving.

This is understandable. Americans have had a healthy fear of federal deficits, which is good for the nation's long-term economic stability. And this fear will create political pressure on the Obama administration to compromise and moderate their grand plans to solve the nation's most crushing challenges. This in and of itself creates a dilemma: if the Obama administration doesn't get the blank check it wants to really solve the economic, health care, energy and ecological crises that it faces, then it can only make a dent in solving these problems. Making a dent is good, but it's not going to solve, resolve or dissolve these issues. Which means that Obama's moderate, even-handed approach to reconciliation might relegate him to being the "band-aid" President, which would be quite a letdown for those who felt he was the Change We Need.

But there is another more systemic political issue at hand as well: I spy a hypocrisy in our aforementioned healthy fear of deficit spending.

Where were the deficit hawks when the Republicans passed a half-trillion dollar Medicare plan? You remember that, right? The largest expansion of Medicare since its inception in 1965 was signed by Bush as he proudly crowed that he was fulfilling 'our nation's solemn promise to America's seniors.' This huge government program came right after Bush pushed out historic tax cuts that were roundly supported by Republicans (sans John McCain) -- a move that also created huge gaps in our federal balance sheet.

So, mums the word when our deficit spending is in the form of tax breaks, and when providing more big-government health care for seniors?

I thought we were all supposed to have a healthy fear of deficits. It turns out, we do, but that's not our ideology. Our ideology is partisan, not national. Democrats scream "deficits!" when Republicans talk tax cuts, Republicans scream "deficits!" when Democrats talk social programs. But, oddly, Republicans go a step further in hypocrisy as I see it when, merely six years ago, they drafted, signed, sealed and delivered a historic, expensive, socialized government-run health care program.

I thought Obama represented the end of Politics as usual

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:39:00 +0000

While many Americans hoped for Hope and gave their spare change for Change, it's not hard to see that in many ways, they're not getting what they bargained for. At least, not yet. While we can't fully hold President Obama accountable for the tone, tenor and strategies of the Republican party, he did promise us a new tone in Washington where we'd respect each others' differences, and return to a politics of respect and dignity of public service.

Yet to listen to the Republicans of late, they sound remarkably similar to the Democrats over the past seven years -- they are strident, angry and self-righteous. Whether the topic is health care (with the "we don't believe a government bureaucrat should come between you and your doctor" nonsense) or Iran (with the "it's not clear to us who's side Obama is on in this uprising" crap), the Republicans are out there trying to score "differential points" -- simple base-building building blocks that separate them in any way from the Democratic President. In other words, it's all about careers, and the country is merely the stage.

Speaking of stages, President Obama himself is quite the stage master, and uses his own presence as a platform for political success. For instance, in his latest press briefing, he strategically tipped off a reporter from Slate ahead of time to ensure he was there and available to be picked on. Why? Because Obama knew that it would be a very politically-savvy move to have a question asked by an Iranian through a U.S. blogger/reporter. This type of stagecraft is quite reminiscent of of the Bush/Cheney years, where every public event was staged to picture-perfect perfection.

Lastly, Obama has simply not wooed Congress to support his agenda. Not only hasn't he wooed, but he promised even more -- that he'd make headway in bi-partisanship. Not seeing much of that bi-partisanship happening, Mr. President, are we?

However, his relationship with congress is a double-edged sword. Constitutionally, the way he's playing it is probably the right way to view the role of the President -- set the agenda and stay out of the rancor and scuttlebutt. This is certainly different from G. W. Bush and his heavy-handed leadership of the congress. So, that's a kind of a Change. But the flip side is that for every disagreement between the Executive and Legislative branches, there will be a requisite political fights and posturing in order to get what each side desires. These fights will remind us all that it's essentially impossible to change the tone of Washington until every elected official truly feels like a civil servant instead of a career politician.

You've been spotted

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:46:00 +0000

I just received this image in my inbox:

Mind you, this is not the only anti-Obama/Democrat mail I've received in the past few months. It's merely one in a litany of propagandist campaigns designed to continue to drum up opposition to the Democratic approach to managing America's problems.

I feel strongly that propaganda is wrong. It's misleading, unbalanced, and designed around a pre-conceived agenda. In other words, it robs us from the freedom of thought. It creates a narrow perspective from which to view reality. This, to me, is anti-freedom, which is anti-American.

So, in the name of freedom, what needs to be said is that while Democrats are surely not wary of raising taxes, it should be heard loud and clear that the reason they're so bent on raising taxes is not to line their own pockets (which is precisely what capitalists do when they raise your rates and raise prices on goods and services). Rather, Democrats raise taxes in an attempt to solve the country's problems. Democrats simply believe that the free market is not the right vehicle to solve social problems on its own. Democrats believe that social problems are best solved with social funds.

Now, you and I (and others) can disagree on what social problems need solving. And we can disagree on whether private or social funds are best suited to solve social problems. That's a fair debate. But what's very uncool is turning this overarching Democratic philosophy of how to solve social problems and turning it into a "I want your money" propaganda message as this cartoon depicts.

Propaganda is used by those who are afraid of losing on the merits.

America, the home of the _____

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:10:00 +0000

Fill in the blank. Brave, right?

Thought so. Which is why I find it so curious that Newt Gingrich asserted that Obama's magnanimity toward Hugo Chavez as a "terrible signal" and "dangerous." Newt, who has floated 99 trial balloons that he's thinking of running for President in 2012, oddly is showing how fearful he is of Chavez's ability to use Obama's graciousness as propaganda to advance his presence in the region. Conversely, by demonstrating cordiality, Obama is demonstrating that he is anything but intimidated by a small-time political player.

Somehow, someway, Newt and his conservative colleagues on the Right still subscribe to the notion that being gracious, magnanimous and bigger than our foes is a bad idea. Conservatives still grasp onto the notion that we ought to lower ourselves down to the level of a petty dictator, where we should use whatever power we have to assert our control, and to clearly define our allies and enemies to make sure that we're seen as being tough -- like a bully who puts up a front to protect himself from his inner weakness.

Yes, Newt and what's left of the Republican party want us to continue to act like a little dictator, while Obama wants us to act like the superpower we are.

It's stunning how far the Republicans have been led down this dead-end path of being so small on the global stage. Republicans from the 60s through the 90s were never like this. They were much more the adults of the world, rising above pettiness, and being bigger than our allies and our foes. Not any longer; the Republicans have apparently ceded this diplomatic high-ground to the Democrats -- and particularly to Obama, who is more like a old-style Republican in his foreign policy than any Democrat would like to admit.

What Newt and friends have yet to figure out is that if they continue to play devil's advocate to everything Obama does well, they're simply going to be representing how to do things poorly. That's just not a very solid platform from which to build an opposition movement.

Are Republicans becoming disgruntled employees?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 00:23:00 +0000

Karl Rove gleefully tweeted about Jackson Diehl's Washington Post column, which echoes the Republican rhetoric that being accommodating somehow needs to come at the exclusion of being a leader.

It should not be a surprise that Republicans believe that empathy is weak, and being obstinate is strong and leadership-y. Unfortunately, this is a hollowed shell of what real, effective leadership is.

Much new research in leadership and organizational dynamics points to the exact opposite of what conservatives believe work in terms of leadership style. Merely being "tough" and "strong" to the exclusion of listening, mapping and demonstrating compassion have proven be ineffective.

In fact, servant leadership is proving to be one of the more effective ways to maximize human capital over the long term. Sure, push-rod, top-down, authoritarian leadership can work in the short-term, but I think most of us would agree that America's playing this game for the long term.

There appears to be a fundamental difference between conservative and progressive leadership philosophies. Ironically, the executive class in America is more likely to understand the benefits of positive, servant leadership, even though they are mostly Republicans. Read a few books on the nation's top CEOs. You'll quickly learn that the best of the best have strong visions for the future, but also understand that listening and compromising are absolutely critical to achieving that vision. No modern CEO has ever succeeded over the long-term by "going it alone" and dragging his constituents with him with tough talk. Think about it: as a CEO, do you want to infuriate your vendors (i.e., allies), or create win-win scenarios with them?

Obama's approach to our allies and other nations so far represents what the best business leaders in the world practice in their own organizations. Like any CEO, we'll see how effective his leadership is after his plans and strategies are given time to make an impact. The Republican outrage every step of the way ends up being similar to the disgruntled employee who doesn't like the new CEO. And we all know how effective and valuable disgruntled employees are.

Potpourri of politics

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:27:00 +0000

The political sphere is spinning at rapid pace. First, AIG bonuses mean Geithner should step down, and soon after he's seen as gaining his footing and finding his voice as the architect of the financial crisis recovery. But architecting a recovery is different than the transformational change that many are looking for after witnessing the kind of crisis the existing financial system got us into.

And then there's President Obama. I can't even keep track of what Obama is doing these days. One day, he's making history and offending handicapped people on Jay Leno, and on another day he's maniacally laughing on 60 Minutes, and then he's doing virtual town hall meetings where he's trying to avoid being the President who legalized marijuana. Then he about faced and announced a new AfPak strategy just in case y'all forgot we're losing a war out there, and Bin Laden is still alive and kickin'. I'm sure I've skipped a bunch of things Obama did, said, and changed since last week. Say what you will; this is a mighty energetic President.

And all of that doesn't even touch on the hubbub Obama created by his prime-time news conference. In a recent editorial in WaPo, Michael Gerson defends Obama's dependence on the teleprompter as just another way of being authentic.   I think Gerson protects too much. Obama' reliance on the teleprompter (or LCD monitor, in the case of the news conference) works against his brand as a genuine leader.   Yes, speeches can be genuine, and just because it's written doesn't mean it's not from the heart. But, too often, we look to our leaders to master stagecraft and symbols as a substitute for being allowed to be human -- one of us who happens to have a fantastic responsibility.   Why must we pretend, nay, insist that our President be otherworldly in his/her perfection? In his news conference, Obama clearly indicated that he can speak off the cuff quite effectively. But if we hadn't seen that side of him, there would have been many who would have implicitly presumed he is an empty suit.

And no potpourri of politics would be complete without reviewing the row between the recently-awakened deficit hawk Republicans and Obama's deficit spending budget plan. It's easy to argue that deficit spending is bad, and that more government is the problem, not the solution.   It's harder, however, to argue the point that America should not seriously consider re-investing in itself far beyond business as usual.   This, by definition, requires deficit spending beyond the current deficit.   The point? Obama is setting the re-investment agenda based on what he ran on, and what he believes is the right thing to do for America. Republicans are not helping America by playing the "no new taxes; shrink government" card. This is not engaging in debate, it's a fingers-in-ears-I-can't-hear-you move. If Republicans want to have influence in the debate, then they should debate on the merits of investment vs. non-investment in strategic economic sectors such as health care, energy and education.    Until they engage in the re-investment debate in a substantive way, they don't really deserve my or your attention.

It's storytelling time

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:17:00 +0000

In Larry Summers' recent speech on the economy, he actually started to paint a picture of what exactly we're experiencing (through useful metaphors), and more importantly, he explained how and why Obama's economic plan was actually going to work.   He was clearly not going to commit to the when's, but I have to say it was a bit of a relief to hear how all of these policies were going to address the issues that we're facing as a nation.

As good as the speech was, it was only the very tip of the iceberg in the telling of "the story" -- the story about what we're currently experiencing, and about how the different components of Obama's plan will deliver us sustainable growth.

While the term sustainable is typically reserved for green strategies, it's a very appropriate term for what Obama's plan is attempting to accomplish. Yet, bizarrely, Obama feels it appropriate to frame his plan as one that will enable a "post-bubble economy." Really?   Is that really preferable to a "sustainable economy"? In any case, Obama is bucking conventional wisdom that the stock market's reaction is an indicator of his plans' viability. Rather, Obama is convinced that the stock market will reject his plans in the short-term, but will turn around when it sinks in how this deep investment plan will benefit the economy in a deeper way than we're used to seeing in modern politics.

Despite the shocking and scary amounts of money being spent and proposed to move America forward, there is some good thinking across the board within the Obama economic team. However, it took way too much of my time and effort to piece it together and to get somewhat comfortable with it. Obama, the great communicator, needs to tell Americans a story that we can easily wrap our heads around; a story that explains the investment of our tax dollars as a path to future long-term prosperity that will pay dividends far beyond the investment.

It's already difficult to justify historic levels of continued government spending in the wake of an administration that allowed deficits to rise uncontrollably.   Americans have every right to feel queasy about a proposed $3.6 trillion budget on the heels of a $700 billion TARP fund and a $780 billion stimulus package.   But if the story is told properly, not only will Americans understand that the $3.6 trillion includes the tremendous costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars that the prior President handed over to Obama, but also includes investments in many key services that Americans want and demand.

Obama will eventually lose the information war if he does not effectively re-frame his budget as a story. He cannot require people to listen to the less-than-electric speeches of Larry Summers to fully understand the situation and the proposed solutions.

Now or Later?

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:13:00 +0000

It's been too quiet at Between the Columns, I know. Consider it processing time. There are a lot of political dynamics swirling around of late, and I would rather hang-tight and remain tight-lipped than simply echo things being said everywhere else. But I've simmered enough. It's time to say something. In fact, a few things.

A dramatic recession is increasingly applying pressure on the country, which is being used as a political sword by both Democrats and Republicans. This is normal and expected.
Obama is rapidly and boldly executing on his campaign promises, but doing so without an overarching narrative. Not surprising, as Obama did the same thing during his campaign.
Republicans continue to cling to free-market fantasies as the free-market they enabled collapses around them. Yet people expect conservatives to change their beliefs based on new realities? Conservative means resistant to change. Obama's orientation to transformational change represents most everything that will drive a conservative up a tree. Nobody should be expecting bi-partisanship. Doesn't mean Obama doesn't still need to try.
Republicans suddenly got religion on deficit spending. The suspicious timing of their deep, deep concern rings hollow and partisan. They might actually have a point -- but please, don't expect us to take you seriously when you effortlessly mix partisanship with patriotism.
Democrats surrounding Obama are looking for sweet, sweet revenge now that they run the joint. Doing so is undermining Obama's brand. Obama doesn't seem to care much, which is likely the result of knee-capping Chicago-style politics entering Washington D.C.
Sec. of Treasury Timothy Geithner might be the smartest, most knowledgeable wonk in the room, but I sniff Emanuel's influence on this pick. Geithner for deputy Sec. of Treasury.
Emanuel v. Limbaugh is the pillow fight that makes Beltway Boys snicker, and what turns off Betsy McMansion. Be careful, hacks. Hackery sells better when people have money to buy stuff.

But I think the Big News is the conflict of cultures that has been cast upon us.

The first culture is the pre-existing one -- the culture that enables Wall Street to believe it reflects the value of America's assets on a daily basis, and a culture that has convinced most Americans that the stock market is the primary tool to ensure future prosperity. It's a Culture of Now that is uniquely American; a culture that you can either be proud of because it rewards risk and action, or sneer at because of how short-sighted and nonstrategic it is.

The second culture is Obama's systems-thinking approach to management and strategy: In this Culture of Later, Obama thinks more like an executive of a large company, where it's all about the 5-year strategic plan. Typically, an executive will have a vision for the future, set short- and long-term goals, and invest in the right infrastructure and assets required to multiply the money invested into future profits and value. And, executives of publicly-traded companies (at least the respected ones) rarely make large changes to their strategic plan based on the daily or monthly value of their stock. This Culture of Later can really freak out people who are addicted to the Culture of Now. To the now'ers, it can appear that later'ers like Obama are "above it all" and don''t really care about you or the fact that you're losing a piece of your life savings every day. In addition, now-loving institutions like the stock market of course react negatively to this new culture in Washington. The markets like predictability, and a new culture of governing is really not very comforting for those who prefer to know exactly how tomorrow will unfold.

Obama likely knows all of this, and is patiently waiting for people and systems to get comfortable with his culture of later approach to society. The man's got a vision for this country, and since he won his election based primarily on the notion of change, it looks like he's going to invest our money to support his vision of what change means. He's the new CEO of America, Inc., and we, the people, are the shareholders who put him in office. In about four years, the shareholders will hold another meeting to decide if we're going to keep him around to continue to advance his vision, or not.

The question everyone loves to ask is: "Should Obama be engaging in a series of massive social investments during such a huge economic crisis?" The answer is more or less academic, because it appears to be precisely what Obama has decided to do.

Ideology and partisan pressure rivals 'team of rivals' strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:25:00 +0000

Judd Gregg's withdrawal of his prior acceptance for Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration is all the rage amongst the political prognosticator class today. But for those who really think this is Big News should ask themselves how much political hay was made of Bill Richardson's withdrawal from this same post. The answer? About 1.5 days.

Of course, this is different than Richardson's withdrawal. Gregg was a controversial pick from the get go, from both liberal and conservative perspectives. The only way Gregg's nomination could have possibly made sense was from the symbolic perspective -- i.e., having an true blue fiscal conservative oversee the fiscal restraint Obama has called for in his own administration. This strategic brand alignment is the kind of high-minded marketing that Obama likes. And while it's clear what Obama was trying to demonstrate with Gregg as Commerce Secretary, it was equally clear to many (including, eventually, Gregg) that it was too much of a tactical stretch to reach a strategic goal.

As Gregg's departure indicates, high-minded marketing and cross-party strategic alliances is clearly not a popular sport in Washington. Combine this with the political rancor around the stimulus bill, and it's clear that Obama is going to continue to have a difficult time finding soul-mates in pragmatism in a system that has been increasingly rewarding ideologues and party loyalists for decades.

Dick Cheney, FUDdy duddy

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:13:00 +0000

In a recent interview with Politico, former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed his deep concerns about his perception of the new administration's plans on how to handle the so-called "war on terror." In the interview, Cheney demonstrates his natural -- and gifted -- ability to lead through fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD). Through this interview, he exudes such a two-dimensional view of national security that he makes George W. Bush seem downright nuanced.

In traditional black-and-white, good-vs-evil, myway-vs.-wrongway thinking, Cheney preemptively indicts the Obama administration as reckless, careless and a danger to American lives:

When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry.

Here, Cheney outlines a cartoonish portrayal of the Obama administration's policy to comply with the rule of law and international treaties, and to act in accordance with our Western (and religious-inspired) cultural values of human rights and freedom.   Does anyone take note that the most powerful Vice President in America's history sees the closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp as equivalent to reading Miranda rights?

If closing down the Guantanamo Bay prison, adhering to the writ of habeas corpus (as mandated by a Supreme Court ruling), and ending all torturing of human beings constitutes a concern to Cheney, maybe he should be worried. Worried, that is, about being indicted by the International Court of Justice for conspiring to indefinitely imprison and torture people without due process.

If you lift away Cheney's nationality and his job history, his view of national security sounds more like that of tyrannical dictator of a third world nation than a former vice president of a super power. Even so, that doesn't mean his approach hasn't helped keep America safer over the past seven years. And Cheney is correct in thinking that we Americans tend to take our safety and security for granted. It's even likely that there were real threats that were stymied as a result of Bush/Cheney's overprotective heavy-handedness. But what he, the media, and most casual observers are not fully considering is that he's never fully justified his philosophy or clearly articulated his goals.

Cheney seems to claim that everything he does and cares about is protecting Americans from threats to their security. Allow me to re-frame his passion through a different lens: How many Americans died from terrorism in 2001? 2,998. And how many people died in drunk driving accidents on American soil in 2001? 17,448.

If the goal of his policies is to protect Americans from harm, then Cheney's passions are misdirected. Cheney should have been railing to re-instate Prohibition instead of warring against terror. If his goal was not to protect American lives, then what was it? To protect our freedom? The only freedoms we've lost due to terrorism are the freedoms that the Bush administration took from us. Was goal was to protect our nation from another catastrophe? I'm sure that's a big part of it, but our nation's security is arguably much more at risk from nuclear weapons being sold on the black market out of Pakistan than from any box-cutter-armed thugs from Afghanistan. If these were not his goals, then what were they? And, if someone does know what his goals were, why doesn't anyone measure his success against his goals as VP? And, why do we allow ourselves to be swayed by these arguments when they do not stand up to basic challenges such as these?

He then goes on to take credit for only having one attack under his watch:

Those policies we put in place, in my opinion, were absolutely crucial to getting us through the last seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on the U.S.

Well, at least he couched it as merely in his opinion. The irony here is that President Clinton's apparent lack of any cohesive anti-terror response to the first WTC attack in 1993 also led to seven-plus years without a major-casualty attack on U.S. soil. So, Cheney's strategy and rationale for disregarding American values and the rule of law (not to mention American casulties) had essentially the same effect as Clinton's supposed foreign policy apathy.

And, in a baffling contradiction with Cheney's stern warnings about the Obama administration releasing Gitmo detainees, Cheney himself admits that at least 61 inmates were released from Guantanamo during the Bush administration, and that they have "gone back into the business of being terrorists."

Shouldn't he be concerned about his own legacy, then, if one or more of these 61 reconstitute to attack America?   How and why Cheney is not asked questions like this by the media is dumbfounding.

Ultimately, Cheney will continue to get to say what he wants to say, effortlessly instilling fear with an air of confidence that -- if we're not thinking critically -- makes us feel good that someone as tough and single-minded as him is looking after us and our safety. That's the power and talent of Dick Cheney -- a charismatic FUD-monger who believes what he says and says what he believes, yet is rarely called out on his tragic lack of savvy, judgment and flagrant disregard for America's values, moral leadership and societal well-being.

What Obama should be wearing

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:53:00 +0000

Instead of that fine suit and tie, maybe Obama should be wearing this oh shit chart on all sides of his body. While I have argued in prior articles that Obama is using fear a little like W. did with Iraq's WMD program, this chart provides more evidence than Bush ever had, and provides the right context and framing to power him through partisan bickering.

I'm sure there are plenty of other charts out there with different impact goals, and there are certainly points to be made about deficit spending being a long-term problem. But leadership means picking the best path based on your experience (assessing the past) and beliefs (predicting the future), and then finding data points and frames that support your path, and convincing others that it's the best path for them, too.

The even better news for Obama regarding the stimulus package and the bail-out fiasco is that there really is no other legitimate, alternative strategy being advocated. The Republicans (and even angry, fed up citizens -- many of which I know personally) have not advanced a cohesive plan to counter the administration's plans. Yes, there are spitballs loaded with compelling arguments, but until there is a full-fledged alternative strategy that can compete with a President with a popular mandate, Obama's game is the only real game in town.

From greed to great

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:40:00 +0000

The law of unintended consequences has seemed to rear its fascinating head with regards to the executive pay cap President Obama recently announced. Soon after Obama announced that executive pay would be capped to $500k for companies receiving tax payer bail-out funds, we already see one firm committing to paying back their TARP infusion as soon as possible so that they would be relieved of the governmental compensation cap.

The initial analysis around Obama's decision to limit executive pay was primarily deemed to be that of smart populist politics: let the people know that accountability is the new game in town, and the corporate excesses would simply not be acceptable to the taxpayers, who not only rescued these firms, but who themselves are struggling.

Yet this turn of events makes this compensation cap strategy appear much more savvy. It now appears to be using greed the same way capitalism uses greed -- as a lever to drive behaviors toward a desired result that benefits the greater good. Most capitalists openly acknowledge that greed (the "good greed") is best channeled by free, competitive markets to create new value in the marketplace, by focusing society's energy on continually improving on the status quo. Similarly, the compensation cap plan now appears to be using the fundamental capitalistic notion of scarcity as a tool to drive "good greed" behavior: the "good greed" desire for unregulated executive compensation is driving the focus on paying back the taxpayers' bail-out.

One has to wonder if the Obama administration was actually thinking like free market capitalists when they designed this plan, and expected this desired behavior. Or did they accidentally step into this unintended consequence?

In any case, this is a great example of how government can actually create and manage programs that can help create desired results that benefit the country (did you even notice this, Republicans?). I'm sure most Americans would much rather see Goldman Sachs pay back their TARP bail-out to the taxpayers than have the government cap their executive pay. Everyone wins.

Maybe this is the kind of thing that "Generation O" progressives have been dreaming of, but have not yet clearly articulated: letting the government play in the "good greed" game along with the free market.

If hope doesn't work, try fear

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 19:00:00 +0000

In a column in the Washington Post today, President Obama attempted to frame the stimulus package debate around old ideas and obstructionists versus the a new administration (and his posse in congress) with a mandate for change.

There were two things in this column that I found kind of shocking, considering the deftness of Obama's campaign, and the persona that Obama garnered over the past two years:

First, I found the tone of the column to be downright Bushian. Obama used his deep concern for the health and welfare of the nation to push his stimulus agenda. This concern, however, was framed similarly to the preemptive strike that President Bush sold America on in 2003 -- "if we don't do what I say we must do, our safety and security is at risk." For those who cannot immediately see the parallels, let's look at the following lines from Obama's appeal:

And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Here, Obama is using the same straw-man approach that the Bush/Cheney White House used so effectively over the last eight years. Obama is comparing his (and the Democrats') plan with doing nothing. Of course, this is a fallacy and should be pointed out as one -- it's not this bill or no bill. The bill simply needs to be changed -- not scrapped -- if he wants to stick to his bi-partisan goals.

In addition, Obama predicts dire circumstances if we do not follow his plan. In fact, he goes as far as to say that we might not be able to reverse our decline. That's scary stuff. Are you warning us of an fiscal smoking gun turning into an economic mushroom cloud, Mr. President?

He then goes on to say:

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis

While there are certainly many Republicans who simply are unable to look critically at their blind trust of free-market ideology, the way this is phrased sounds actually more Cheneyian than Bushian. Obama is actually saying "if you do not agree with my approach to solving the problem, then you are unfortunately misguided. Only I know how to guide us." Sound familiar?

Finally, in a departure from Bush/Cheney idea management savvy, Obama fails to connect the fear he creates to the results of his plan. He jumps into a list of objectives in his re-investment and recovery plan as "things we need to do" without describing at all how and why these particular things are the things we need to do. In other words, why these things versus other things? Are all the other things simply "misguided?"

For all I know, Obama's plan might be spot-on. He's a smart fellow, and has smart people all around him. But being smart isn't good enough. And not sharing the thinking and reasoning behind each specific pillar of the plan is a mistake that is giving many Americans pause. Unfortunately, I see the Obama administration already hunkering down as if this is a partisan fight, when I really do think it's more of a communications misstep (as I've posted about here and here).

Not that the Obama administration is listening to my little corner of the blogosphere (where's that NYT gig when I need it?), but if I could offer my advice, I would have President Obama halt the stimulus bill as it stands, and request to break it up into the primary pillars that defined his candidacy, and pass them one by one.

As far as I'm aware, there is no quota on how many bills can be passed in one term, so I do not understand the reasoning behind the bulkitude of this stimulus bill. Obama and the Democrats would be wise to engage the Republicans on each individual cause, because there's more political punch in each item individually than all combined.

A less stimulating stimulus

noreply@blogger.com (Jon) — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:06:00 +0000

Big surprise -- a new Rasmussen poll indicates that the public is becoming wary of the stimulus bill. The question asked in this poll was:

Do you favor or oppose the economic recovery package proposed by Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats?

If you read the prior post here at Between the Columns, you'd see that I made the case that the branding and the naming of the bill are completely out of sync, which is one of the primary sources of political rancor, and frankly, confusion. And the naming/branding divide shows up once again in this poll.

The stimulus bill is referred to the economic recovery package in the poll question, whereas the actual bill's name and cause is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill. That "reinvestment" bit is the elephant, if you will, in the room.

The Democrats are just itching for a fight if they're going to continue to push a bill that is both recovery and reinvestment, when the rest of the country thinks it's only about recovery.

As I stated in my prior post (in greater detail), this divergence of cause cannot be understated. Yet, I feel I am the lonely voice in the political blogosphere trying to raise this issue. If you can help raise awareness around this, please do. Framing this bill consistently is the first critical step toward getting a bill so important (and so expensive) right.