Can we at least agree on what we are trying to achieve?

Thomas Friedman writes of the need for Obama to define a "a clear, simple, repeatable narrative to explain his politics." Friedman refers to this needed statement as a "rubric" (a statement of purpose or function).  It is this latter label that reveals the true value of such a statement.

A context or purpose is essential to a plan or strategy.  As a framework for suggested actions, it allows one to see clearly the actions' relative value in terms of achieving higher level objectives. It is more than just a means for "spinning" messages, or of preventing the possibility that actions will be "easily obstructed, picked off or delegitimized by opponents and lobbyists."  Although these may be some side benefits of having a clear purpose to frame one's actions, they should not be the primary intent.

Friedman has actually roughed out a good starting point for organizing the thinking in Obama's national plan.  Its purpose (depicted on the left in the illustration), the broad brush strokes of fairly high level objectives (in the mid section), and a general reference to tactical actions suggested to achieve the objectives (depicted on the right).

This outline should be taken a step further.  The key would be to weight the objectives (those in the middle).  Many people would argue that "All are needed.  They are all important."  This is not disputed. All objectives are on the list because of this very truth...they are all needed.  Health care, energy independence, education, infrastructure, national competitiveness.  However, there is still a relative priority, a relative importance to undertaking improvements to them.  Determination of this relative importance comes by comparative analysis of each against all others, in terms of the context and additionally considering in that comparison the current known status of each as well as the time frame of the plan.

Once relative priority of the objectives is defined, the next step is to assess the more tactical actions being suggested against all objectives.  Typically, one action will have been developed in terms of one objective. However, an action could serve multiple objectives. The critical nature of any action is determined by its influence upon supporting the achievement of more than one objective, factoring in the relative importance of each of those objectives.  It is the cumulative merit that makes some actions those that are the "king pins" of one's plan.

Most persons might think that this type of prioritization work would take days.  It doesn't.  It can be done in hours. Others will argue that politics will never allow this to work.  One can understand the frustration of Senator Evan Bayh leading to his recent resignation.  The key is of course, to have a willingness by a group to commit that time (hours), to be open for reasonable discussion, and to be respectful of others' thoughts.  We have seen the most divided groups find common ground, and elevate their work because of their ability to serve a greater purpose. Agreement on purpose is the beginning of the execution of a plan in which everyone is functioning as a team, which is why having such a statement is vital.

A lesson from youthful West Point faces

As I watched President Obama's speech to the assemblage at West Point, I looked at the faces of the cadets.  So young, I thought.  So very, very young.  So much being put on their shoulders.  So much to ask of them at such a young age.
During the Vietnam War a different set of equally young faces and shoulders, those of my peers, also had much placed on them as they, too, left for a war in a distant country.  From the vantage point of youth, however, one does not sense being so young.  And perhaps, when one is going to war, not noticing one's own youth is a blessing.

The odd thing about getting older, as my father used to tell me, is that it is only the body that ages. One continues to feel eighteen inside, each morning when one awakes.  Except that a certain breadth of experience provides a type of stability or equanimity to the thinking of that eighteen-year-old deep inside.  I am now beginning to experience first hand this insight that my father tried to pass casually to me decades ago.

All this has underscored a key principle in bringing groups to consensus, and finding the unity of which the President spoke. We need to understand varying perspectives in terms of their "context" or vantage point -- those that come from differing backgrounds, or from diverse cultures or experiences, or the differing views that are simply due to age.

If the context, or viewpoint, changes, the criteria by which we judge differs.  Context sets the framework for determining viability, or even just acceptability, in our minds.

One simply views life and one's choices differently, when one's position in it changes. It is why a health decision could differ for the same person for the same disease when that person is forty vs. when the same person is ninety-six.  Why an item that costs the same can seem expensive or inexpensive depending on one's income.  It is why a view of war can change when the soldier is oneself, or is one's child.  All perspectives are valid.  Common understanding of a "true" picture, and from that the glimmer of potential unity, comes from seeing the same object from all viewpoints.

Chasing the numbers vs. doing the job
My hat is off to David Axelrod for stating that the current administration won't be worrying about polls re Obama's popularity. Many cable news pundits are saying ignoring the numbers shows "lack of political savvy." Consider, however, how many Americans would say they admire "politicians?" Most people would prefer seeing some positive tangible results after an election. They want to see a job get done. It is annoying to elect someone who then cares more about focusing on re-election than on the job they were elected to do. Take heed, Congress.

The desire to prove worth through attaining position, as opposed to having our deeds create value (even if at some personal expense) permeates our culture. How often do persons in business seem more worried about advancement to a subsequent job (on a upwardly mobile "career path"), than in accomplishing positive substantive change in the job that they are in? What is the typical description of these types?  "Political." This word has evolved to become anything but a positive adjective.

Numbers do have value, in their place.  They can reflect the relative merit of choices under consideration.  They can assess the results of actions, and allow one to steer a better course.  Yet, to chase numbers in and of themselves is not wise.  The key is to know when and which numbers will help you toward a goal, and which will distract you from that purpose. One's purpose, of course, must be more than something self-serving.  Thank you, Mr. President!  And you, too, Mr. Axelrod.

Or self-destruction over "whose" direction

Paul Krugman in the New York Times reports on the shift from political parties themselves, to a support base outside the political officialdom of the party of "celebrity" agents. This move plays to extremist beliefs in our society.

"Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it."

The "right" undoubtedly also believes that the "left" is employing the same techniques. For those in the "middle," frustrations continue to grow as the deep divisions in this country (cited as Krugman points out, decades before), appear likely to continue.

Divisions are sustained, as he indicates, by extremist viewpoints. Unfortunately extremism, by its nature, appeals more to the media ("right" or "left") than anything moderate. The result is that those in the "middle" are besieged by demands for partisanship. Take a stand...a "side."  "What are you, some sort of 'leftist?'" "You sound like a socialist!"  "Are you a right-wing Republican, for goodness' sake?" Ideas are not heard until they are first pigeon-holed. Opinions that might, by issue, find a home in "one camp" or the other cannot be judged without first being labeled.

The results of this divisiveness for the majority of moderate citizens is an increasing sense of futility. Each "side" enfolds its beliefs in a ballooning self-righteousness. It appears that we are unable to work together to achieve a greater common purpose. We are to be forever mired in the lesser purpose of having some "side" win at all costs thereby entitling the winner to force "the other side" into compliance with its own beliefs.

Is this the nature of a two party system? Will it always be about who is in charge? Who wins? Is it impossible for two sides (whether or not elected officials), once an election is concluded, to put aside "winning the next election" to focus collectively on achieving a greater purpose?

If the purpose of each "side" cannot be elevated to a higher common purpose, we can be assured that decades from now, another journalist will be quoting Krugman's columns, just as he quotes the work of Richard Hofstadter from 1964.

Decisions are typically fought at the level of details. Conflict resolution must first focus on achievement of agreement at a higher level, and then work from that point into the details, exploring alternatives in the context of that agreed-upon greater purpose. Achieving movement in a common direction always depends on collectively seeing value in a destination.

We can always throw up our hands and say that the two-party system is and shall always remain diametrically opposed.  That there is no common destination. We can continue to demonize others who have ideas and beliefs that differ from ours. We can insist that we will always be headed in opposite directions, refusing to even attempt common exploration of alternatives.

If we truly believe all of that, and we truly believe that we can never see a common purpose, then we need to accept that we are not one country, but two. We need to then accept that an internal war will always be taking place in which, during any given administration, one country will "occupy" and "enslave" the other to its beliefs. The question is, is this then the type of country we wish to have? Or, is there any hope that we are willing to change this picture of extremism?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." The author, of course, appears right there on the U.S. penny.  Instead of promoting self-righteous beliefs, perhaps it is time to ask "Penny for your thoughts?"

Is health care a right?
In Monday's post, I wrote about the need for clarity and simplicity in the structure of any "document" that organizes elements of a decision. All decision-makers need to be able to quickly and readily access information, so that they can make an intelligent decision.

Perhaps of more importance, is reaching agreement on the objective of the decision that one hopes to achieve. Clarification of this ultimate objective must precede detailed descriptions of actions which may or may not help achieve that end.

Although the House Bill starts with the statement "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes" this statement starts well, but ends poorly. The last clause obscures the purpose by referencing undefined purposes.  The tiny little word "all" (in reference to "all Americans") is dwarfed by the other verbiage.

Fundamentally the question that must first be answered:
Is health care a right of citizens of the U.S.?

Secondly, if so, is this Act affirming that right?

Thirdly, if the second is true, why is anyone still speaking about "acceptable levels of uninsured, or underinsured" Americans?

There has been a good deal of drifting away from the original purpose.  The criticism by some persons that this "reform" is more about insurance than about health care stems validly from the fact that most actions are now dealing with insurance (even the White House site defends this reform as "Health Insurance Reform"). This reform is not being framed in terms of "rights" to health care.  The Act, itself, adopts a short name referencing "Affordability" but nothing about "Accessibility" in its title.

Affordability is but one factor in terms of Accessibility.  Insurance is but a means to make health care accessible to some.  Ironically, it is also a factor that has resulted in health care becoming inaccessible to others.

As the focus on "options" has shifted to types of insurance, we need to ask why.   Investigators always say to "follow the money."  Who benefits more from focusing on the ins and outs of insurance than in clarifying the rights of citizens?

A simple vote by every member of Congress to answer whether health care, not health insurance, is a right of a U.S. citizen or not is needed.  Once we have the answer to that question, it would be infinitely easier to create a system relating to funding it, alternatives as to how it could be provided and if and what type of "industry" will be needed and structured to support it.

The Bill refers to "building on what works in today's health care system."  "What works" is never enumerated. Perhaps there is nothing to point to specifically. More likely the statement is a euphemism for not letting go of a system.  But this system has allowed some to amass a fortune from the misfortune of others, and those same entities are now strategically keeping the question of "rights" of "all" citizens out of the discussion.

A clear statement of context will always clarify the better actions to take.  And some must be very concerned that, if that context were to change, "building on what we have" might not, indeed, be the best move.

In the weeds, fractured, and in legalese

Any decision, and especially one of great import, needs to be structured for clarity.  Having said that...

On October 29th the House produced a bill for health care reform. Rather than just accept the media's interpretation of it, I undertook the review of its 1,990 pages last night.  I made it to page 334. I still intend to finish, but some things are already apparent.

I wonder how many reporters have, and more importantly, how many Representatives will fully read and fully understand it in its present structure.  How can one?

Six aspects of the structure cause concern:

1. Not every Representative in the House is a lawyer, yet the language could not be more "legalese" or more tangled in its convolutions.

Example:

"In any case in which agreement with respect to the provisions required under subparagraph (B) for any fiscal year has not been reached as of the first day of such fiscal year, the latest agreement with respect to such provisions shall be deemed in effect on an interim basis for such fiscal year until such time as an agreement relating to such provisions is subsequently reached."

We should demand that Representatives, as authors of bills, "take a page" from this Bill itself (page 121 to be exact) in which they admonish others to use "plain language:"

"The term ‘‘plain language’’ means language that the intended audience, including individuals with limited English proficiency, can readily understand and use because that language is concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices of plain language writing."

2. Instead of defining terms in the designated area called "Definitions," the Bill makes reference to definitions buried across the 1,990 pages of the document, as well as definitions found in other documents.

Example:

"GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, in this division: 
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term in section 302(d)(2). 
(2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 303(c). 
(6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’ (A) means a group health plan (as defined in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974); "

NOTE: Since the Table of Contents does not include page numbers, nor do the footers indicate location, quickly locating "section 302(d)(2)," or section "303(c)" or others (in other Acts) to learn the definition of terms is pretty much impossible.  The reader is likely to read for some time, without knowledge of terms' meaning, before learning actual meaning. This invites misunderstanding.  It begs the question, "Is this misleading structure intentional?"

3. Not constructed in terms of constituencies, the Bill obscures the full picture being painted for each, i.e., for user/patient, provider (doctor/hospital, etc.), insurance provider, small business, large business, government (administration and oversight), government (tax: implications, administration, penalties).  As it now stands, each constituency's roles and responsibilities are fractured and spread throughout 1,990 pages. 

4. This Bill is neither a stand-alone read, nor action.  In it are Amendments to other legislation: e.g., to the Social Security Act, and the IRS tax code.  These Amendments are literally sprinkled throughout the document.  More importantly, they are made purely by reference to excerpted portions of phrases.  Full context is obscured, as in the example below:

Example:

"PAYROLL TAXES.— 
(A) Section 3121(a)(2) of such Code is amended (i) by striking 'or any of his dependents' in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting ', any of his dependents, or any eligible beneficiary (within the meaning of section 106(g)) with respect to the employee',"

5. Always a dangerous thing to do, there are numerous sections that appear to repeat themselves. In some (but not all) cases, there are slight alterations. For clarity, an element should appear once and in one location, and should include any variations (revealing their relevancy and rationale).  As the Bill currently is written, without being able to ascertain quickly a context for each current repetition (caused by lack of footers indicating location/context), further confusion is invited.  For a bill that includes proposed use of technology as a solution, it amazes one that the simple management of footers, so basic to all word processing, has been overlooked.  Again, it begs the question, "Is this obfuscation intentional?"

6. The Congress is so "into the weeds" that this Bill pre-empts the work that is the purview of an administrative body. One wonders what the Department of Health, Education and Welfare's (HEW) job is.

An example of "the weeds:"

"WHERE SERVICE IS FURNISHED
For purposes of paying the additional amount specified in paragraph (1), if the Secretary uses the 5-digit postal ZIP Code where the service is furnished, the dominant county of the postal ZIP Code (as determined by the United States Postal Service, or otherwise) shall be used to determine whether the postal ZIP Code is in a county described in subparagraph (A). "

In summary...

When did Congress drift from the role model of the Founding Fathers when it came to succinct frameworks of clarity?  The entire Bill of Rights is on one page. Consider that document's Eighth Amendment in its entirety: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Period.  Paragraph.  End of entire Amendment.

Our clients know that a directorial body's responsibility is to provide a framework for management and staff to refine subsequently into an implementation plan.  That is the "direction" and the scope expected from such a body.  A "Zip Code level" of detail is far beyond being a framework.

The U.S. public have been advised that the "devil is in the details."  However, the devil in this case appears to be the modern day Congress' assumption that they must be in charge of the details, and that approval of a framework for further work is impossible without their dotting all i's and crossing all t's.

Ahhh... the lucrative market of parental guilt
The New York Times reports the admission by Disney, through their offer to refund purchase money, that "Baby Einstein" DVDs/videos will not make one's baby smarter.  In August 2007, researchers at the University of Washington published a study which found that the use of Baby Einstein DVDs/videos correlated to smaller vocabularies in children 6 to 18 months old.  So, two years later, it amazes one to think the claim by the product was still being held valid.  "Regular programming," apparently, can be deadly, to more than just children.

Unfortunate as this state of affairs may be, there is something to be learned from it. A powerful concept drives a strong strategy. The overarching marketing concept of "transforming 'the electronic baby-sitter' into a 'teacher'" provided a strong vision, against which all subsequent products were developed. I suppose that is also why the New York Times' article, even in this the last act of this product, was placed in the Education and not the Business section of the paper.  The idea persists that the product relates more to education than business.  The presence of "genius" was clearly in the marketing of the product.

The New York Times' article, ends by quoting Vicky Rideout of the Kaiser Family Foundation:

Wow.  There's a bit of genius.
Is this not covered in "Babies for Dummies?"  Or is that not on DVD?

Swimming with Sharks