I have a friend who sends me political snippets and action alerts. Sometimes a dozen or so a day. And they are all good causes. But it's too much, and too scatter-shot.
I finally made a filter just for her, and once a week or so I look to see what she's sent. And then I delete most of them. She is so outraged, and so willing to find a dastardly conspiracy behind everything, that I have to stop listening. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?
That may be the point. This interesting blog (pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com) proposes that at least some of the outrageous proposed legislation is being proposed just to provoke outrage. Yelling on both sides just makes the uncommitted public tune out the argument. "They're both equally bad, and equally at fault," they think.
If you are a minority party, this is a good, albeit risky, strategy. Risky, because you don't want to energize the uncommitted. You want them so uncommitted that they won't vote.
The committed opponents won't vote for you anyway. But you may fracture their solidarity. You can bring up issues that are contentious even within their ranks. By carefully framing the issues so that some react with extreme outrage, you may get the moderates to distance themselves from the extremists. The moderates may give up in disgust if their colleagues start sounding like conspiracy theorists. Or they may simply become confused by the shouting. Either way, if you can split them, you will be closer to gaining a majority come voting day.
Once in power, you can drop the extreme proposals. You can do it under the guise of being misunderstood at the start, or you can say you are being responsive to the constituency. You never need to say it was all just a ploy to start with.
The moral for us on the other side: don't fall into the outrage trap. If the issues are being provocatively addressed, don't rise to the bait. Recognize that in many cases there is a real concern being addressed. Respectfully consider what is being proposed, and answer intelligently. Point out an alternative solution to the concern, rather than just reacting violently to their proposal.
This isn't a game. It's not a matter of winners and losers. They are not unalloyed evil, we are not unalloyed good. Both sides want what they think is best for this country. I happen to think that their vision is corrupted by entrenched special interests and a selfish lack of empathy for others. They probably think mine is starry-eyed and unrealistic. But in the end, we will all be travelling this road together.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Mother's Day
Today, Mother's Day is a day for pampering Mom, for giving her chocolates and flowers and breakfast in bed.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:
"That a general congress of women, without limit of nationality, may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."Needless to say, this general congress of women (a good 50 years before women were given the right to vote) never occurred. Some cities did celebrate the day for a time.
Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.
But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.
The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,
"What will you do to route charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations?”Jarvis's opposition did little to stem the tide of commercialism, and today Mother's Day is about a 16 billion dollar industry. The origin of the day as an anti-war effort are mostly forgotten.
Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher. Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.
And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.
A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Business of Politics
Once upon a time, in a former life, I worked for a Fortune 500 company. They trained me in Project Management and sent me through Six Sigma certification, and I eventually became a member of the Global Business Process Team (as the most junior member).
I think I can say, with some confidence, that no business would make policy the way Congress does. I'm not talking about the kinds of decisions they make; a government is NOT a business and has entirely different goals and capabilities. I'm talking about the decision-making process itself.
A bill represents a change in policy, sometimes a major change. Such a change should only be undertaken after appropriate analysis, and analysis can only be based on data.
Right now, bills are introduced higglety-pigglety, at the whim of the sponsors. Some bills are pet projects, some are unimportant, and some will affect every person in this country. We trust that things will muddle through, that bills with merit will pass, and those without will get stuck in committee, or at least do no harm. Meantime, the attention of our legislators is drawn equally to all projects. It's a massive case of ADHD institutionalized as standard operating practice.
Government should do what any organization should do before implementing policy changes.
First: Define the problem. Is there a need for a change (bill)? What is the scope of the problem? Define metrics that measure the problem. Collect data to supports the idea that change is needed. Make projections as to how the problem will persist or worsen if no action is taken.
Second: Propose a change. Explain how the proposed change should affect the metrics you are using to measure the problem. How will you know if the change is working?
Third: Identify possible consequences. As far as possible, identify all stakeholders, both for the original problem and for the proposed solution. List possible side effects and analyze their impact.
ANY proposed bill should include these elements. In essence, you are doing a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The word "social" indicates that neither the investment nor the return is necessarily monetary. But it should still be possible to provide metrics, otherwise you will not know if you are making an effective change.
If bills had to have this sort of analysis to qualify them for introduction, I suspect a lot of bills would never be introduced, or be instantly revealed as political posturing. That might be fine; unimportant bills get passed all the time. Schoolkids might submit a petition to name the bald eagle in the National Zoo George, and there is nothing wrong with congress considering and passing such a bill. There is little need for such a change, but the cost primarily consists of our legislators' time, and the social benefit in terms of PR and political education may make it worthwhile, especially since such a lightweight bill acts as comic relief to the legislators themselves.
But bills such as the voter ID laws may be stopped. (Or perhaps not -- I don't have the data, and that's the point.) A need has not been demonstrated. If there is data (and not just rhetoric) to support such a bill, then it should be provided as supporting documents for the bill's introduction. However, perhaps the current problem is small, but the consequence of not acting is anticipated to be large. If that is the case, provide projections and a well-supported argument. Balance that against the cost of other consequences -- the disenfranchisement of certain voter blocks.
All of this should be hashed out in committee (including the ability to return the proposal for more data or analysis), and only if the proposal is satisfactory should the bill actually be introduced on the floor.
I think it implementing this one administrative change would redeem the entire governmental decision-making process.
It is essentially a conservative move, in the truest sense of the word. It maintains the status quo unless there is demonstrated need, and ensures (as much as possible) that only effective programs are instituted and financed. And it limits time wasted on political posturing. It is also essentially liberal, in that it identifies need and encourages effective action to address those needs.
Now, if this were a business proposal, it would be implemented first in some sort of test bed, so the entire company is not committed until there is some evidence that the anticipated benefits will materialize. That requires additional metrics -- how will we know this is working? -- and a back-out plan -- if it's not working, how can we cancel its implementation? The way our legislative system is set up, this isn't really possible. Ideally, each bill would have a standard escape hatch clause-- that is to say, a bill that is passed could be easily revoked in say, a year, if the metrics show that the anticipated benefits are NOT occurring, or that unanticipated consequences ARE occurring. But that's a topic for another day.
I think I can say, with some confidence, that no business would make policy the way Congress does. I'm not talking about the kinds of decisions they make; a government is NOT a business and has entirely different goals and capabilities. I'm talking about the decision-making process itself.
A bill represents a change in policy, sometimes a major change. Such a change should only be undertaken after appropriate analysis, and analysis can only be based on data.
Right now, bills are introduced higglety-pigglety, at the whim of the sponsors. Some bills are pet projects, some are unimportant, and some will affect every person in this country. We trust that things will muddle through, that bills with merit will pass, and those without will get stuck in committee, or at least do no harm. Meantime, the attention of our legislators is drawn equally to all projects. It's a massive case of ADHD institutionalized as standard operating practice.
Government should do what any organization should do before implementing policy changes.
First: Define the problem. Is there a need for a change (bill)? What is the scope of the problem? Define metrics that measure the problem. Collect data to supports the idea that change is needed. Make projections as to how the problem will persist or worsen if no action is taken.
Second: Propose a change. Explain how the proposed change should affect the metrics you are using to measure the problem. How will you know if the change is working?
Third: Identify possible consequences. As far as possible, identify all stakeholders, both for the original problem and for the proposed solution. List possible side effects and analyze their impact.
ANY proposed bill should include these elements. In essence, you are doing a Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis. The word "social" indicates that neither the investment nor the return is necessarily monetary. But it should still be possible to provide metrics, otherwise you will not know if you are making an effective change.
If bills had to have this sort of analysis to qualify them for introduction, I suspect a lot of bills would never be introduced, or be instantly revealed as political posturing. That might be fine; unimportant bills get passed all the time. Schoolkids might submit a petition to name the bald eagle in the National Zoo George, and there is nothing wrong with congress considering and passing such a bill. There is little need for such a change, but the cost primarily consists of our legislators' time, and the social benefit in terms of PR and political education may make it worthwhile, especially since such a lightweight bill acts as comic relief to the legislators themselves.
But bills such as the voter ID laws may be stopped. (Or perhaps not -- I don't have the data, and that's the point.) A need has not been demonstrated. If there is data (and not just rhetoric) to support such a bill, then it should be provided as supporting documents for the bill's introduction. However, perhaps the current problem is small, but the consequence of not acting is anticipated to be large. If that is the case, provide projections and a well-supported argument. Balance that against the cost of other consequences -- the disenfranchisement of certain voter blocks.
All of this should be hashed out in committee (including the ability to return the proposal for more data or analysis), and only if the proposal is satisfactory should the bill actually be introduced on the floor.
I think it implementing this one administrative change would redeem the entire governmental decision-making process.
It is essentially a conservative move, in the truest sense of the word. It maintains the status quo unless there is demonstrated need, and ensures (as much as possible) that only effective programs are instituted and financed. And it limits time wasted on political posturing. It is also essentially liberal, in that it identifies need and encourages effective action to address those needs.
Now, if this were a business proposal, it would be implemented first in some sort of test bed, so the entire company is not committed until there is some evidence that the anticipated benefits will materialize. That requires additional metrics -- how will we know this is working? -- and a back-out plan -- if it's not working, how can we cancel its implementation? The way our legislative system is set up, this isn't really possible. Ideally, each bill would have a standard escape hatch clause-- that is to say, a bill that is passed could be easily revoked in say, a year, if the metrics show that the anticipated benefits are NOT occurring, or that unanticipated consequences ARE occurring. But that's a topic for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)