Friday, August 14, 2009
The Best Performance by a President
In my memory, we have seen few presidential performances as good as President Obama's hosting the Medal of Freedom event this week. In addition to picking an amazingly impressive and diverse group (including four non-citizens), the symbolic impact of the event is incredible. His statement, that their lives reflect that greatness is determined by what we do more than by who we are was outstanding. It also, by the way, created an opening for us to think about his own remarkable accomplishments, without us knowing it.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Two Good Days for Obama
Yesterday's town hall in New Hampshire was, in my view, the turning point for the health care debate. Only the craziest of opponent could come away thinking the meeting was "supporters only," and Obama set a tone that will be hard to change. I think the Republicans are in deep trouble on this and they they have overplayed their hands so much, that they will soon be reeling.
Today, Obama's incredibly sincere and relaxed hosting of the Medal of Freedom ceremony was President Obama at his best. By choosing such a wide array of people, taking care to include someone almost every American can admire (except those craziest of the crazies), Obama sent a message that he does not intend to abandon his conviction that we are all assets. This was the best event of his presidency so far, IMHO.
Today, Obama's incredibly sincere and relaxed hosting of the Medal of Freedom ceremony was President Obama at his best. By choosing such a wide array of people, taking care to include someone almost every American can admire (except those craziest of the crazies), Obama sent a message that he does not intend to abandon his conviction that we are all assets. This was the best event of his presidency so far, IMHO.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Charles Krauthammer Actuall Makes Sense?!
I usually read Charles Krauthammer only because I love reading very smart people who are so blinded by their ideology that they rationalize anything (and he is a psychiatrist to boot, which makes his unconscious behavior even more interesting), but I must say I agree with the two items he mentions in his column today.
Think about this in strategic ways: Dems throw malpractice lawyers into the fire, thus showing real guts and a further commitment to "bipartisanship," and Republicans are boxed into a corner.
Think about this in strategic ways: Dems throw malpractice lawyers into the fire, thus showing real guts and a further commitment to "bipartisanship," and Republicans are boxed into a corner.
Let's be sensible in our counter-responses
Although I am offended that he uses the term "political terrorist" to describe the liars in the Republican camp, Steven Pearlstein has a very good commentary in today's Washington Post on how inaccurate the broad claims of government-run health care, trillion dollar costs, and (my favorite) how Obama is going to make real the fictional Soylent Green (for a comic distraction go here for the original) approach to dealing with seniors.
The good news is that my impression is that the Republican tactic of stalling until after the summer recess was a mistake on their part. This tactic is based in part on Gresham's Law of Information: bad information crowds out good information. I need to divert into academic matters to explain why Republicans chose the tactic and why it is going to backfire.
In political science, scholars like Samuel Popkin have argued that people cope with too much information and too little time or interest to pay close attention through the use of "cues," like whether seemingly minor behaviors of presidential candidates can tell people a lot about them (whether they eat ethnic food properly, can hit bowling pins with a ball, whether they are willing to do shots with the guys in a bar, or whether they wear a crisp white dress shirt on the stage of a country music festival).
In addition, decision making theory speaks to the issue as well. Most political consultants and practitioner tend to assume Herbert Simon's theories of decision making. Simon argued that truly rational decision making requires a three step process of gathering information on alternatives, analyzing all potential consequences of actions, and being able to make clear and systematic comparisons. Simon argued that this is not possible. Instead people and organizations tend to make incremental decisions that are "good enough."
So, how do these theories relate to Republican tactics on health care? Okay...the first assumption they are making is that people will latch on to the frames they create through the sophisticated use of language. Frank Luntz, a political scientist by training, is their main guru on using language (he claims a role in the Contract for America and in redefining inheritance taxes as death taxes). So, you hear the terms "run," "takeover," and other frightening words connected to "government." You also hear comparisons of the Obama public option to the Postal Service and the DMV (two decentralized entities that everyone hates, even though they do a pretty good job of dealing with the mess of interacting with everyone in our country). These are attempts to frame the issue in a way to give people who are minimally interested and attentive a quick reference that will lead to position taking that helps the Republicans.
The second assumption is based on information overload. If we throw garbage into the discussion and repeat it over and over, that information will crowd out thoughtful, rational information that may actually inform people. This messy, loud and confusing screaming match will create an information overload, leading to people deciding to maintain the status quo. It will also turn people off to politics, since most of us want harmony, not conflict.
So, why are the Republicans wrong? First, Popkin's theory of "good enough" information only works when everyone is hearing the same message. If people listen to different messages they get different cues. The result is that counter-framing is likely to provide for a competition in the minds of those who use shortcuts. What we are witnessing right now is the Democratic counter-framing response, and the congressional break is giving them time to make it work.
The second reason the break is a mistake for Republicans is that I personally do not think that Gresham's Law of Information works quite the same way as in the past. The theory is based upon a natural flow if information from interested parties. What we see now is a synthetic flow of information that is not organic, and so it messes up the natural process of perception that leads to bad information crowding out good. I personally think that the opposite is beginning to happen.
So, I think that had Obama stuck to his original deadline, he would have lost. Now, his chances are better. I know this is counter intuitive, but I am confident that the better information will sway the swayables, increase the polling numbers a bit, and help the Democrats pass a plan (which will be less than progressives want and more than what the Blue Dogs want).
The good news is that my impression is that the Republican tactic of stalling until after the summer recess was a mistake on their part. This tactic is based in part on Gresham's Law of Information: bad information crowds out good information. I need to divert into academic matters to explain why Republicans chose the tactic and why it is going to backfire.
In political science, scholars like Samuel Popkin have argued that people cope with too much information and too little time or interest to pay close attention through the use of "cues," like whether seemingly minor behaviors of presidential candidates can tell people a lot about them (whether they eat ethnic food properly, can hit bowling pins with a ball, whether they are willing to do shots with the guys in a bar, or whether they wear a crisp white dress shirt on the stage of a country music festival).
In addition, decision making theory speaks to the issue as well. Most political consultants and practitioner tend to assume Herbert Simon's theories of decision making. Simon argued that truly rational decision making requires a three step process of gathering information on alternatives, analyzing all potential consequences of actions, and being able to make clear and systematic comparisons. Simon argued that this is not possible. Instead people and organizations tend to make incremental decisions that are "good enough."
So, how do these theories relate to Republican tactics on health care? Okay...the first assumption they are making is that people will latch on to the frames they create through the sophisticated use of language. Frank Luntz, a political scientist by training, is their main guru on using language (he claims a role in the Contract for America and in redefining inheritance taxes as death taxes). So, you hear the terms "run," "takeover," and other frightening words connected to "government." You also hear comparisons of the Obama public option to the Postal Service and the DMV (two decentralized entities that everyone hates, even though they do a pretty good job of dealing with the mess of interacting with everyone in our country). These are attempts to frame the issue in a way to give people who are minimally interested and attentive a quick reference that will lead to position taking that helps the Republicans.
The second assumption is based on information overload. If we throw garbage into the discussion and repeat it over and over, that information will crowd out thoughtful, rational information that may actually inform people. This messy, loud and confusing screaming match will create an information overload, leading to people deciding to maintain the status quo. It will also turn people off to politics, since most of us want harmony, not conflict.
So, why are the Republicans wrong? First, Popkin's theory of "good enough" information only works when everyone is hearing the same message. If people listen to different messages they get different cues. The result is that counter-framing is likely to provide for a competition in the minds of those who use shortcuts. What we are witnessing right now is the Democratic counter-framing response, and the congressional break is giving them time to make it work.
The second reason the break is a mistake for Republicans is that I personally do not think that Gresham's Law of Information works quite the same way as in the past. The theory is based upon a natural flow if information from interested parties. What we see now is a synthetic flow of information that is not organic, and so it messes up the natural process of perception that leads to bad information crowding out good. I personally think that the opposite is beginning to happen.
So, I think that had Obama stuck to his original deadline, he would have lost. Now, his chances are better. I know this is counter intuitive, but I am confident that the better information will sway the swayables, increase the polling numbers a bit, and help the Democrats pass a plan (which will be less than progressives want and more than what the Blue Dogs want).
Thursday, August 6, 2009
The Need to Change Our Educational Paradigm
Not about politics, per se, but interesting nonetheless. Ken Robinson at TED, discussing how we need to reform the way we view education. I generally agree.
Astroturf, Crazies and Mainstream Republicans
Steven Benen at the Washington Monthly makes a good point about the problems with sitting back and letting the corporate Republican community use astroturf politics to destroy health care reform. The point is that if left unchecked, mainstream Republicans have nowhere else to go but the extreme and inaccurate positions being spewed out by the likes of Betsy McCaughey (who effectively lied about the Clinton plan in 1994, repeating the lies so many times that it became assumed that she was possibly correct).
A case in point. A relative of mine (to be unnamed) asked me about the current proposals and how they might impact people who buy their own coverage. I sent an analysis done by Business Week that described the current plans in the House and Senate. The response? This relative assumed that (a) the ceiling for premiums was the percent of income we will all pay (11%), (b) that everyone would have to buy the most expensive plans, and (c) their family would be paying higher taxes. All of these are wrong, and could have been corrected if this person read carefully. But the point is that in the days of Twitter, people do not read details. therefore, they make assumptions based upon the information out there in the general media environment. So, lies do not get dismissed; instead, they reinforce the fuzzy belief systems of inattentives.
The moral of this story: there does need to be some response to the crazies..
A case in point. A relative of mine (to be unnamed) asked me about the current proposals and how they might impact people who buy their own coverage. I sent an analysis done by Business Week that described the current plans in the House and Senate. The response? This relative assumed that (a) the ceiling for premiums was the percent of income we will all pay (11%), (b) that everyone would have to buy the most expensive plans, and (c) their family would be paying higher taxes. All of these are wrong, and could have been corrected if this person read carefully. But the point is that in the days of Twitter, people do not read details. therefore, they make assumptions based upon the information out there in the general media environment. So, lies do not get dismissed; instead, they reinforce the fuzzy belief systems of inattentives.
The moral of this story: there does need to be some response to the crazies..
On Obama Losing Control in the Health Care Debate.
A common criticism of President Obama lately has been that he let Congress take the lead in crafting the details of health care reform. This is assumed to be a bad thing. It is not.
First, we need to keep in mind that Obama grew up during the era that many academics call "The Imperial Presidency." Those of us who were children when LBJ was in office and teens when Nixon resigned tend to have an instinctual reluctance to trust centralized authority.
Second, as a President with legislative experience, Obama has respect for the legislative process of bargaining and compromise. This is reinforced by his organizational ideology, one that emphasizes collaboration, even with opposing sides (refer to the work of John Kretzmann and Jon McNight on post-Alinsky organizing that emphasizes "asset-based" community development).
Third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama does appear to respect the original design of our Constitution, which is premised on the belief that equilibrium is achieved in the Newtonian laws of political physics: power and authority is shared by competing political institutions and forces.
This guy is a throwback to the modern era of presidents, and so he wants the legislature to be the arena where he works. The White House is indeed working to influence health care, but in an inside way consistent with the approach of presidents in the FDR-Johnson era. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
One last connection: taking this approach is tapping into the idea that the more minds and interests that go into a decision, the better the result, Read James Surowicki's The Wisdom of Crowds if you want a clearer understanding of how collective decisions are almost always more successful than ones made by individuals or small groups of experts...
First, we need to keep in mind that Obama grew up during the era that many academics call "The Imperial Presidency." Those of us who were children when LBJ was in office and teens when Nixon resigned tend to have an instinctual reluctance to trust centralized authority.
Second, as a President with legislative experience, Obama has respect for the legislative process of bargaining and compromise. This is reinforced by his organizational ideology, one that emphasizes collaboration, even with opposing sides (refer to the work of John Kretzmann and Jon McNight on post-Alinsky organizing that emphasizes "asset-based" community development).
Third, as a constitutional scholar, Obama does appear to respect the original design of our Constitution, which is premised on the belief that equilibrium is achieved in the Newtonian laws of political physics: power and authority is shared by competing political institutions and forces.
This guy is a throwback to the modern era of presidents, and so he wants the legislature to be the arena where he works. The White House is indeed working to influence health care, but in an inside way consistent with the approach of presidents in the FDR-Johnson era. This is a good thing, not a bad one.
One last connection: taking this approach is tapping into the idea that the more minds and interests that go into a decision, the better the result, Read James Surowicki's The Wisdom of Crowds if you want a clearer understanding of how collective decisions are almost always more successful than ones made by individuals or small groups of experts...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)