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.

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...

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.

16 minutes of "fame"?
At times one worries that one can merely become a contributor to another's "15 minutes of fame (infamy)" by commenting upon whatever led to that infamy.  Where is the demarcation line between being horrified at the self-promotion of a Balloon Boy & Family and becoming part of their further promotion? That, of course, is the "producing genius" behind reality TV. The more horrific something is, the larger is the audience that it attracts.

Given that, the decision to watch Sarah Palin on Oprah was difficult.  Was it important that I watch a potential 2012 political candidate spread out a "wish I coulda thoughta this earlier" re-write of history?  Or was I merely contributing to the ratings for the show?  To watch, or not to watch? That was the question.

In this era of "makeovers" and "reality TV," Palin criticized McCain campaign handlers for her "makeover." An ironic criticism, given that her book tour and promotional interviews are part of yet another makeover. This time a makeover of history. Was it this that bothered me?

During her interview with Barbara Walters, Palin stated that her family seemed to be becoming a "reality show." (Oddly, this was the aim of Balloon Boy's father.) Demurely feigned disparagement of this idea (or similar ones) might actually hide delight. During her interview with Barbara Walters, Palin held the overtly happy view that Letterman will only increase her book sales by his jokes.  Was it my being so easily lured into this hype that bothered me?

The Balloon Boy saga and Palin's book are both about the spotlight, making money, and about the potential that money would allow for achieving something else.  Content in the Palin book is secondary to that end, which is why it doesn't matter if it is true or not.  The controversy and the hype about the book matter more. Center stage is better than being in the wings.

Just as the staged loss/recovery of Balloon Boy was only a means to an end, so the debate around this book serves another greater aspiration. A clear purpose ensures a greater chance of success.  Knowing another's purpose makes their actions easier to understand.

What is the ultimate aim of Palin's book?  It has less to do with "setting things straight," or what is past.  It is a piece of a strategy that is focused most clearly towards the future.  Just think about all the things that Sarah Palin would like to "make over," given the money and power that she might gain from sales of the book.

Keeping in sight these potential end "realities" will determine whether one purchases the book, or gets in line to read one of the many library copies already purchased.  And remember, those purchasing will not even have to read it to have served the greater purpose.  Just as my watching Palin on Oprah already contributed to that show's ratings.  16 minutes of fame, and counting...

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?"

Who in fact has taken over whom?

The House health care reform bill...i.e., the insurance reform bill... passed by a slim margin of 5, with 39 Democrats apparently realizing "being a Democrat" is not the sole reason to vote for a bill.  There is some comfort in seeing that "dissent."  Decisions should not be made solely for one reason, and despite politics, the need to "close ranks" on a vote is not a criteria of the decision itself.

Since the Bill has now passed, a review of some pertinent parameters of direct costs for the average citizen might be enlightening:

• Insurance coverage will be mandatory, and the penalty for not having insurance, will be 2.5% of adjusted gross income.

If one does obligingly go along with the mandatory purchase of health insurance, then the following costs will be encountered by an individual:

• "Cost sharing" to be "capped" at $5,000/year (premiums not included). Let's hope we can schedule our illnesses to fall entirely within one year.

• A $1,500 deductible/year (which, so generously, will go towards the $5K "cost sharing"). We should be grateful that in addition to premiums, we'll still be paying up to "only" $1,500  before what we paid for with the premiums kicks in.

And, yes, what of the premiums?  From a citizen's point of view, premiums have been one of the major roadblocks to acquiring health insurance.  In the Bill, the dollar amount remains unspecified.  The terms for premiums are:

• that they do not count towards the capped "cost sharing" 
• they can increase as the insured person's age increases
• that the highest premium charged is "restricted" to not be more than twice the lowest premium charge.

The Bill's direct wording is as follows:

(1) PREMIUM.—The monthly premium charged to eligible individuals for coverage under the program (A) may vary by age so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1; (B) shall be set at a level that does not exceed 125 percent of the prevailing standard rate for comparable coverage in the individual market; and (C) shall be adjusted for geographic variation in costs. Health insurance issuers shall provide such information as the Secretary may require to determine prevailing standard rates under this paragraph.

Unseemly low end premiums will allow even more onerous premiums for those aging, but not yet on Medicare.  Yet we are to take comfort in that the rates for the low end will be set by information from none other than the insurance industry.  They "will provide information... to determine prevailing standard rates."

This would all be bad enough, if we were free to choose not to participate in such a scheme. But, now, the industry will additionally have the government providing enforcement on their behalf through the IRS.

Reports of "Kill the Bill" rallies indicated that most of those marchers believed that the government was "taking over health care." This evidences a most skillful manipulation. More apparent is that it is the insurance industry that has taken control over health care, even more so than they enjoy today.  The industry has secured a market, and through law, is binding the government into a role of being an enforcement agency for their interests.

The future could not be rosier for the insurance industry. Guaranteed premiums for 308 million citizens.  High deductibles.  Law enforcement at no charge. No private industry ever had it so good.

Many in Congress forgot that addressing the viewpoints and requirements of each constituency is necessary for support of any decision by those whom it will affect.  They lost sight of their purpose.

Our "representatives" constructed a system that was driven by and favors the most powerful constituency, not the constituency that is most affected.  The original intent of providing health care to all Americans, was exchanged for obtaining money from all citizens.  Gives new meaning to the term "Health Insurance Exchange."