The Commercial Christmas -- leveraging guilt and obligation

Phil Donahue is credited with the remark "December 25th has become guilt and obligation." He is not alone in this opinion.

We have watched the "holiday season" evolve over time from being merely "days" of guilt and obligation to one spanning several months.  This expanded duration certainly has the footprint of expert and subtle marketing...er, "building on proven success."  Meet the commercial side of the holidays.

Of interest is the coupling of the two words "guilt" and "obligation."

Our clients know that the nuances of wording can ultimately have huge impact over one's choices.  So, it is worth examining more closely the interrelationship of these two words.  If one were asked "Is it worse to feel guilty or to feel obligated," would the person answering feel a difference? Is one better or worse than the other?  If the question were "Is it worse to be guilty, or to be obligated?" is the sense of difference in the words clearer? When using words as the basis for some judgment or actions, finding their emotional "tenor" can be important.

It is apparent that "obligation" itself is not a "bad" thing.  There is a certain tone to it that indicates being bound, either morally or legally.  "Guilt," however, does not carry the same flavor, but rather suggests a feeling of having committed a wrong, or having failed.

No one likes to feel guilty.  So, if marketeers play too much with strategies that make persons feel guilty, they are playing with fire, and are definitely courting backlash. Marketeers have also tainted the more noble aspects of "obligation." They have in fact created a mundane, dislikable composite, i.e. "guilty obligation."  Or "guilting into obligation."

A simple definition might begin to set things right.  The word "gift."  Its definition is "a thing given willingly to someone without payment." Assuaging guilt is a form of payment.  Seeking relief of an obligation, repaying an obligation.  These are not the "giving" of "gifts."  If objects are purchased with these factors as the motivation, those things serve commercial purposes only. The spirit, soul or heart of either persons or the holiday itself are overlooked.  Definitions help find one's true purpose.  'Tis the season to be wary...

Arrogance Abroad

Was Amanda Knox guilty?  Was Amanda Knox innocent?
Maria Cantwell, the U.S. Senator from Amanda Knox's home state of Washington, questions the justice system of another country and declares that "anti-Americanism" may have been the cause of the guilty verdict.

The problem, as with many decisions or judgments, is in understanding the definitions of terms, as well as how a differing venue can change them.  Americanism.  Acceptability.

The American-produced post-verdict analyses of Amanda Knox's trial, show Americans saying "I look at her, and it could have been me." The truth is that the rest of the world could easily be saying, with disdain, "We look at her, and we see 'typical Americans abroad.'"

Europeans have told me that many Americans seem to think of Europe as just another "theme park." A "playground" into which Americans bring their vulgar behavior, coupled with disdain for others' culture and values. Attitudinal issues are not limited to Europe alone. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has accurately described the U.S. view of Middle Eastern countries purely as "a gas station," overlooking those countries' cultural contributions to humanity or their potential as a highly educated work force.

Before we self-righteously declare "anti-Americanism" as some sort of defense, we need to look at ourselves from others' points of view.  Is the trial of Amanda Knox revealing something about ourselves for which we may feel guilt? and for which we may actually feel some shame?

For many Americans, Knox's actions (despite the acknowledged illegality even in the U.S. of smoking dope) apparently seem "normal" or "acceptable." The assumption by Americans that other cultures would adopt an American definition of "normality" or "acceptability" reflects yet an additional deficient element of "Americanism" -- a parochial world view. Any expectation that the world should play by our rules and our values (and then crying foul when it does not) is either the most basic form of stupidity or arrogance. The crux of the matter is not whether Amanda Knox's actions are accepted at home, rather it is whether her actions were "acceptable" in her host country.

Any citizen of any country is an ambassador of their home country when abroad, in most cases traveling without diplomatic immunity. Any actions in which a person engages contribute to the image of one's home country. The collective image that evolves over time, is and will be used by others as a frame of reference for judgment. Foreigners in the U.S. are equally stereotyped by the actions of their compatriots. Have we not seen judgment of a culture be based solely on a person from that culture whom one has met or perhaps has seen as depicted only in films? Can we, ourselves, unequivocally state that such a "framework" or "profile" of a culture has not influenced a judgment of an individual in our system of justice?

As I traveled abroad, well before Amanda Knox, I often was received in terms of a stereotype of "American women," which at the time assumed promiscuity and wealth. The saga of Amanda Knox has only contributed to that image. She is guilty, even if not of other crimes, certainly in terms of contributing to that repulsive stereotype of all women in our nation.  In this she is certainly not alone: films and music videos continue to project an image of American female promiscuity.

The "Americanism" of smoking dope and having casual extramarital sex are not values that all Americans support. Do we think that any person, anywhere, would wish their children to adopt these behaviors? Yet, the American "entertainment" industry continues to export that image as being representative of "American values." "Freedom" has been redefined in terms of self-centeredness and self-gratification, without the need for responsibility for the effects of one's actions.

If that image is "Americanism," then yes, I myself feel a sentiment of "anti-Americanism." Knox is a product of a culture that allowed her to believe in the acceptability of such behavior. She has thereby contributed to a depiction of Americans that is going to make them misunderstood before they even speak or act for years and years.  Who is guilty?  Perhaps Amanda. But the fault, dear Brutus, lies not just in Amanda, but in ourselves.

Are our representatives really listening?

It seems we are not going to see the end of this health care debate for a long, long, time. Most offensive is that the politics of the issues have become more visible, and seemingly more important, than the principles that should, in fact, be guiding the reform.

The New York Times hits the nail on the head when it states "In a day of desultory debate..." Desultory. Yes, the very heart of the problem. Without plan or purpose.  Except, of course, political gain for one side or the other. Good decisions cannot be reached without clear, agreed upon, purpose.

Health care reform. The guiding criteria that our elected officials should be using to frame such reform still remain unstated or they lack affirmation. What is the definition of health care -- not as an industry that insures, but as a service to this nation's citizens?  Is health care a right of these citizens? Should it be available to all, or only to some?

Instead of framing this reform in terms of these key elements, the "issue" of health care reform is being framed in terms of personal political gain: Make a name for oneself.  Win for one's party. Keep "the other guys" from making progress.  Manipulate and "pitch" to constituencies to ensure an election "win" in the future.  Leverage the "issue du jour" in one's own favor.


Is this "debate" for the good of the people?  No.  We can be but assured that it is for political gain.

Political primping and positioning are fomenting a feeling of resentment in the popular base, which our representatives should by now realize is the constituency most widely and directly affected.  This base is neither being represented nor heard by those who are "debating." Contacting elected representatives invariably results in electronic platitudes and form letters stating unwavering pre-set positions, which in turn indicate that opinions and comments are basically unheard.

Statements continue to be made about "affordability" and, in the same breath, those remarks are linked to others such as "no major increase in premiums will be made for the overwhelming majority of Americans who already have insurance."

Have our representatives completely swept under the rug the uninsured Americans, along with the reason for their being uninsured -- premiums that are, and have been, too high, i.e. beyond the range of "affordability?"

It is imperative that our representatives step out of their own shoes.  Most Americans do not have the ability to pay the same premiums or deductibles that these representatives encounter in their lives.  The insular world of Representatives and Senators, with salaries of $174,000 per year (with an annual cost of living increase) cannot be the basis of understanding the angst of someone with a minimum wage job earning $7.25/hour ($15,000 per year), who hears of "continued levels" of existing already out-of-range premiums or of $5,000/year deductibles.  These remarks reveal that the lawmakers are completely out-of-touch with reality.

For a representative, it must be considerably easier, if not "more important," to "listen" to those entities who make big contributions to one's campaign. However, individuals in this society, whether they make millions or make peanuts, should probably take heart in knowing that corporations may "vote" only with their money.  The hope here is that ballots on election day, cast by individuals, will remain the only ones that can return an elected official to their seat.

House reprise, variations and all without needed clarity
On Friday,  I downloaded the Senate's 2,000+ page version of their "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and began reading.  As with the House's reform bill,  key aspects of its structure make it difficult for various constituencies to ascertain effects on them of the proposed system.

Bureaucracy is in evidence from page one, literally. I actually downloaded the Bill twice because, after the first download, it seemed a completely unrelated bill was somehow substituted. The confusion stems from the apparent need to utilize an existing totally unrelated bill (about first-time homebuyers for members of the Armed Forces) as a "work around" to get the actual health care reform bill onto the floor of the Senate.  So, the unrelated bill was used, striking out the bulk of its contents, and substituting in their place the terms for the health care reform bill.  It is tough to admit that for such critical legislation our current system of government required a "work around" from the get go. Not an auspicious start.

For the curious, here is that beginning on page one:


In general, much of the Senate's bill contains the same annoying legalese, lack of page numbering and lack of clarifying footers that are in the House's bill.  There are references and substitutions of fragments of other legislation without full context. If one enjoys reading IRS instructions for doing taxes, one will have the same pleasure in reading this legislation. As with taxes, if this system goes forward, I'm sure an entire industry will evolve to handle explanations, exceptions, processing claims, and requesting subsidies under this new system (begging the question: how will someone afford this help if one actually qualifies for a subsidy?).

The bill mentions implementing a system for rebates when an insurer reports excess profits. Rebates! A system that has scammed many Americans, enough to make the 5 o-clock news on several occasions.  Businesses have made huge profits through the rebate system. Does anyone believe this purchasing ploy would not be here today if it weren't profitable? What is our comfort level, our trust in an industry's reporting system, when we know it would not serve their profit motive?

Reports. This bill has extensive reporting requirements of not only insurers, but of care providers. One wonders who will do all the report preparation as well as the reading of these reports.  Existing personnel?  Or additional hires?  All this reporting will surely not be done without expense.   And who is going to bear the burden of that expense? (Directly or indirectly.)  Perhaps we can take heart in that more jobs will be created, however tedious and time consuming they may be.  And, we may experience first hand the expression "death by a thousand paper cuts."

There are references to platinum, gold, silver, bronze and yet another plan that does not even get a "medal" rating.  Perhaps, as my father used to say, it won't be worth "a plug nickel." More disturbing than this built-in class structure for care, we, as individuals, cannot determine where we might be in this picture or how we will navigate through the system.  One cannot specifically determine what will be available, nor what it will cost.  Or, if the full system will become for each of us (depending on our geographic location) simply irrelevant.  One might live potentially in a State that could refuse to have an "insurance exchange."  Yet, the one thing we can be sure of is that participation will be mandated or we shall be penalized.

As one reads this bill, one experiences a jarring reminder that those who are legislating on our behalf have lived in a privileged and moneyed world.  There is reference to $2,000 and $8,000 deductibles, as if average Americans would deem this type of yearly expenditure "reasonable" in addition to whatever are "affordable" premiums.  Again, "affordability" in the bill is something that will be determined based on "reviews."  The Senate's bill, indicates those who are older can "only" be charged 3 times what a younger person is charged.  (The House's bill, as you may recall, "limited" this ratio to 2 times.)  The lack of definition of what the lower amount would be limited to, however, leaves these ratios on equally nebulous and dangerous footing.

The Senate bill, as with the House's, contains details at a highly specific level for many areas, but conspicuous by their absence are specifics on the details most critical to the average American.  It does not allow an individual to determine, even as an estimate, "What will this cost me?" and "What will I get for that?"

Our clients know that before priorities are set or decisions made, it is imperative that specific understanding be gained about factors or elements of a decision.  Terms, such as "affordable," must be clarified specifically so that all understand and agree with its definition.  Clarifications must go further to ensure that "those who are not in the room" are also able to understand.  "Reasonable" must be defined in terms that are clear, either through references that are clearly understood, or by an example.

Without such explication, there will always be an open invitation for subsequent "interpretation." The arguments that then ensue are guaranteed.  If we could only be assured that this needed clarity would be determined during the three weeks of expected debate in the Senate!  Ah, but this is unlikely. In politics, vagueness is a means of protection.  For politicians, not for the people served.  Obscurity is introduced to "reach agreement across the aisle." A most dangerous maneuver. Vagueness is not a solution.  My Irish friends often quote a saying that when one tries to sit on two stools, one falls in between.