Reading the signs

The media generally wears political bifocals... they can see clearly only when they fit into the pre-determined focal lengths: left vs. right, Dem vs. Pub, big vs. small, partisan vs. bi-partisan.

While this creates clarity and surety (attributes that people prefer in our cultural narratives), it doesn't always serve us well.  Sometimes, there are complex dynamics at play -- dynamics that are "messy."  And when political reporting skirts these complexities, we get the equivalent of listening to music in "mono" (vs. stereo), or watching a television show in black & white (vs. color).  We lose critical dimension that tells us a lot more about what we're observing. 

In the most recent incident of this bifocalization of politics, the narrative has been painted opportunistically by the Republicans that, well, Democrats are back in power... and look at how they spend your tax dollars!  

And Obama and the Democrats fell into the that brand trap so easily and readily, it's almost as if they hadn't been aware of their brand problems regarding spending and taxes over the past, say, 40 years. 

So, predictably, the media "reports" what the Republicans decry, and with no meaningful counter-narrative from the Democrats, the dye has been set in the media's eyes: Obama's popularity is fading because of how he mishandled the health care reform debate, and that he didn't focus enough on "jobs, jobs, jobs."

But, there is a lot more color around the politics du jour than is being painted.  There are many sources of social noise that simply can't be located when listening to politics in mono. 

What is really at issue here is a trend that has been tragically under-reported:  the economic shift that started in the early 1990s and continues at a rapid pace today:  the globalization of the economy.

"Outsourcing" has been the evil mask we're affixed to this overarching dynamic.  The populist media found an easy, comprehensible target and flooded our national narrative with outsourcing as the evil face of globalization.

Yet the outsourcing of jobs to developing countries is merely one facet of globalization's impact.  The more systemic and troubling development (at least, for America) is that with capitalism, markets tend to become more efficient, and find equilibrium.   And as we continue to embark on global capitalistic endeavors and trade deals, America's disproportionate high standard of living is rubbing up directly against standards of living that, on average, are far, far lower almost anywhere else in the world.

The result?  In an open, transparent market, America's standard of living is guaranteed to be reduced in the face of open competition from lower standard of living regions and countries.   We as Americans -- especially the politically potent of us -- are hooked on affluence.  We believe as a culture (many religiously) that we are destined and chosen to live more secure, happier, plush lifestyles simply because we are American.  

But since the early 1990's, reality is creeping up on us.  Our global economic and moral hegemony is on the decline, and all we can really do is just hang on and try to delay the slide for as long as possible.

Which is why we have become so gosh-darned conservative and economically imbalanced over the years.  Avoiding an uncertain and unflattering future is a conservative stance.  And while most people would never articulate their fears and concerns the way I just did, I believe that people intuitively understand what's going on.  But what they are doing politically is the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and screaming "la la la la la!" so as not to address these issues head-on.  Because no matter what we do, the issues are going to reduce our standard of living for a long time -- and possibly permanently.

The irony is that a decline in our aggregate lifestyle will be the best thing that ever happened to this country.  Our country has become a singularly-focused culture on wealth, wealth creation and wealth protection.  This is quite unhealthy socially, and we are seeing the results of this social obesity throughout our system.  People are much richer, yet much less happy.  People have less time to enjoy life.  Parents have less time to raise their children.  Americans are becoming historically obese and overweight.  Our culture of convenience has made us generally more lazy, and less fulfilled.  And it can't existentially or morally be fulfilling when the affluent feel increasingly victimized by taxation as they turn a blind eye toward the plight of the poor and working class. 

Nevertheless, nobody wants to slide toward less affluence, less protection and less economic freedom.  Yet that is where we're heading.  And it's because of this macro-social-economic trend that President Obama is having a difficult time running the country.  Wall Street, realtors, small and large businesses alike are all on the lookout and grasping for the next scheme they can latch onto on the way down the economic slide -- any scheme that will prop them up long enough so that they can cash out and surf the decline in relative style. 

You can't really blame these people and institutions for trying to scour the system for a few last-minute jackpots.  It's the natural thing to do.  And you can't really blame our political leaders for not being honest with us about the situation at hand (who would win on that platform?).   But I'd argue you can blame the media for not making this the narrative that we all need to discuss and chew on as a culture.  At length.  Only after mainstream America understands and comes to grips with the future will we have the fortitude to look for political leaders who will need to deal with the future as it's going to be -- not sell us a lie about our future.

I want to point out that I am not being a pessimist.  I believe very strongly in the power and capability of Americans to innovate and create new, unprecedented value in the global marketplace.  And I believe that our military might will keep the country quite relevant on the global stage.   But our ability to innovate and create new economic value has very little to do with the global lifestyle equilibrium being so out of whack for so long.  With global trade, the equilibrium will inevitably slowly converge, with developing countries trending up toward average, and America trending down toward average. 

This trajectory will be very good for the people in the world.  More people will be lifted out of poverty as a result.  We are embarking on a history transfer of wealth from America and The West to developing markets. And it's happening through the free markets and increasing trade -- not some socialist agenda.  

The iSlate of the Union: Jobs v. Obama

In celebration of January 27 being a tremendously important day for both Steve Jobs and President Obama, Slate recently published a cute mash-up of Steve Jobs giving the State of the Union address.

This article led to a conversation I had with some friends around the importance of marketing, communications, (and frankly, hype) when it comes to not just consumer marketing, but political marketing.

A prevailing view in this conversation was that if Barack Obama would only frame his initiatives like Steve Jobs does, he’d be enjoying much more success after his first year in office.   Further, there was a strong belief that President Obama needs to demonstrate the kind of leadership that Jobs is famous for displaying at Apple.  In other words, if Obama were to lead like Jobs, then Health Care Reform would be as successful as the iPod.   In other words, Obama’s policies need to “just work.”  

There are a lot of similarities here, and I think there are plenty of politicians that can and should learn from successful marketers like Jobs.  However, I am not convinced that passing “progressive” policy like health care reform is anything like selling an iPod.  Similarly, creating progressive policy is nothing like developing any hi-tech gadget. 

Creating and passing progressive policy requires a different type of leadership, because the dynamics could not be more different:  With policy, you are forcing people to buy something.  With product, you are asking people to buy something.  True, if more policies were developed with the 'ask' mentality, they may have a higher chance of succeeding.  But politicians in Washington know that, unlike an Apple project that is under wraps for years, making policy is pretty transparent, and allow Americans to weigh in on the design mid-way through the process.  That of course has the effect of modifying the product and veering away from the original goals.   In other words, in order to make a legislative iPod, one would have to change the rules of law making. 

Another difference between iPods and progressive policy is that, time and time again, progressive policy sets a course into new territory, and forces everyone to be part of the journey.   Not surprisingly, many who benefit from the status quo have no interest in mucking with success.   And if the majority of Americans benefit from the status quo in health care, good luck getting them to buy an upgrade.   Whereas if Apple gets 10% of a given market, it’s a huge commercial success.  10% approval ratings for health care reform would be seen as a complete flop.

None of this, however, excuses Obama and the Democrats for completely mucking up the health care reform process.  They let themselves lose the public debate on the merits, and, worse, allowed themselves to fall into the 'means to an end' mentality that sent the policy off the rails, and gave their opposition much spark by crafting deals that resemble Mafia payoffs more than legislative horse trading.  

A year ago, Barack Obama was inaugurated with a feel of Apple-like fanboydom surrounding him.  Within that year, he "saved" the economy and the auto industry, and lost that argument with the majority of Americans.  Soon, Jobs will be unleashing his latest achievement that has been years in the making, where he will likely be heralded as saving the publishing industry, just like he did the music industry with iTunes/iPod.  

Seems to me that President Obama could learn a thing or two about publicity and story shaping from Jobs as they do seem to have a few things in common.

Progressives and their Long View

As President Obama's popularity dwindles from its highs not just a year ago, I am struck by an observation I have of many liberals and progressives that seems to be shared by Obama:  the preference to focus on the future over the now.

And it's not just focus -- it's language, philosophy, and orientation.  The progressive in us is the consummate planner; the part of us that looks to give up something now (time, resources, opportunities) in the hope of netting returns greater than the investment in the future.  

One might call progressives "social investors" if one were a savvy marketeer. 

Yet, investing is easier to do when it's you putting your own goods on the line to invest in your own future.  Starting a business, investing in the stock market, investing in your child's future or well-being... these are investments that are fairly easy for each of us to make.  Yet it gets a bit trickier when you're looking to commit 300 million people to a shared investment strategy.

And this is what President Obama is staring down right now -- a nation that is generally not too happy that he's planning their investment strategies for them.  Be it Wall Street bail-outs, auto sector bail-outs, or even health insurance reform, a large swath of Americans just don't trust Government to invest for them. 

Which brings me to some advice for President Obama (because we all know he reads this blog) and progressives at large:  While you might be morally, ethically and strategically connected to investing for a brighter future, a large majority of Americans live in the now, care first-and-foremost about the now, and need to believe you share their interest in the now.

This means that while you plot and plan your social investment strategies, plans and policies, you cannot forget that the majority of people aren't there with you.  They're here.  And they want to believe their leaders see the world they see, and live in the world they live in. 

Conservatives have the opposite problem, of course -- they live almost exclusively in the now and aren't big on social investment projects.  They gain popularity readily because of this dogmatic pragmatism -- it's frankly the easier pill to swallow of the two philosophies. 

Neither philosophy has exclusive rights to being perfect, of course.  They both need to be balanced against each other so that we don't exclusively focus on today, and yet don't give up all of what we have today in exchange for tomorrow.   But what surprises me about the otherwise-savvy Obama is that he has put precious little effort into portraying his administration as one that cares deeply about today, and is carefully balancing it against the needs of tomorrow.

There's no doubt that the bulk of his campaign was all about investing in tomorrow, but the market collapse in 2008 (the same collapse that likely got him elected) trumped almost everything he was running on.   I'd make the case that he hasn't calibrated his message or policies enough to fulfill the evolving needs of a nervous nation that feels systemic economic change afoot, and really isn't sure where we're going to fit in when things eventually settle down.

People feel quite unsettled out there, and health insurance reform isn't the medicine they're looking for right now.   That will come as soon as they feel secure again in a job that doesn't have good enough health insurance.

Politics in 2009: A Review

First, let me apologize for the recent infrequency of blog posts.   No excuses; just apologies.   I will do my best to ramp back up to regular posts, and at the same time look for a larger "home" for Between the Columns so that I have an environment with real deadlines. 

Now, onto a "politics in a nutshell" review of 2009:

• President Obama was sworn into office, riding the coattails of a nation pinning their hopes on the notion that someone who seemed different would, indeed, be the difference they were looking for.  Result: It's been different, but not nearly as much as his campaign intoned.
  
  
• President Obama took "bold, sweeping" action (a style typified by George W. Bush) in the form of a large stimulus (ahem, reinvestment and recovery act) bill that instantly affixed him to the "big spending liberal" post that was sitting there, waiting for him.   It also probably saved the country from a massive economic depression. 
  
  
• President Obama made a historic speech in Egypt about the Middle East; yet only the technocrats and historians listened and cared.
  
  
• Sarah Palin quit being Governor of Alaska, while calling people who stay in their jobs the real quitters.  Not sure if this was brilliantly stupid or stupidly brilliant.  And that mobius strip of a conundrum is precisely why the media has a high on Palin.  
  
  
• Speaking of the media being stuck on Palin, Sarah becomes the first national political personality who uses Twitter and Facebook as her exclusive press secretary. 
  
  
• A spate of rigged economic bubbles, combined with about eight years of government mismanagement -- surprise! -- left an American public untrusting of big, distant institutions.  Y'know, institutions like that federal government.  The same government that handed billions of tax payer dollars over to other big, distant institutions ranging from investment banks to auto manufacturers.  I'm stunned by the apparent lack of thought in the White House had around the transition to a new administration... that somehow Americans would so quickly begin trusting government to do "big things" like the stimulus and health care reform when it had just come off a run of Big Things Gone Bad. 
  
  
• All of this activity, combined with some latent racism and natural conservatism that occurs when people are under stress, helped launch the Tea Party movement.   This movement has had a high participant-to-impact ratio, as the media became fascinated by this small contingent of loud, angry voices.   This serves as an important reminder that squeaky wheels still do get the grease.  Especially wheels that can are able to squeak through the regular daily squawking.  
  
  
• In case you missed it, the Tea Party gets higher approval ratings than Dems or Pubs in a national poll among independents. 
  
  
• Throughout the year, Dick Cheney grumbles aloud about how Obama doesn't do anything right, and is leading America into an untimely death.  The media doesn't know what to do with a former VP who has become a bizarre caricature of his former self. 
  
  
• Amid the ugliness of a severely depressed economy, President Obama stood up and declared that he was going to fix healthcare.  He then promptly sat down and let the old-school Dems fuss about it in Congress, annoying everyone in the process (including, in the end, his base). 
  
  
• Healthcare (ahem, health insurance) legislation hi-jinks, combined with double-digit unemployment and six-digit bonuses in recently-bailed-out-Wall-Street firms, sap the remaining mojo about of the Obama Presidency.  Although we can see "change" from many different angles, it sure doesn't feel like "change" looking straight at it. 
  
  
• Obama tries a new tactic on handling terrorist attacks -- don't freak out.  Well, apparently, Republicans are demanding that Obama freak out, so he capitulated and did a little freaking out.  Then he got trashed for not freaking out soon enough, and then he got slammed for planning to try the failed terrorist in civilian court vs. military tribunals.    It would be one thing to have a great debate on the pros and cons of trying a terrorist in court or military tribunal, but it's another to make it a political statement vs. a policy statement.  If our parties can no longer talk about policy without embedding partisanship, then I'd have to say that they've overstayed their welcome.  Policy is meat; partisanship is candy.   Our politics and media have holes in their teeth, and are emaciated yet obese. 
  

Kind of a depressing round-up for 2009, eh?  Yes, this nutshell is reflective of my lens... a lens that had higher hopes for "year 1" of the era of Obama.  A lens that sees the complexities of the issues we're up against, and the seemingly unwillingness of our society to be able to cope with these complexities through meaningful debate and reasonable resolutions, policies and project plans. 

Here are some additional thoughts around why things don't feel so great on a macro scale:

America is depressed because we're letting ourselves down.  Obama said it on the campaign trail -- and he was right:  Change happens from the bottom-up, and each of us needs to make the changes we can in order for true, systemic improvements to occur in our culture.   Yet, as President, I've heard and felt almost none of this sentiment from Obama.  It's not like he's not trying to do the right thing... he certainly is.  But he's doing it in what seems to be the most conventional, conservative approach he could take -- letting Congress drive the politics, and letting the opposition party continue to control the debate and tell the more compelling stories. 

The leadership we need is not the kind that fixes the economy for us.  The leadership we need is the kind that challenges us to fix the economy.  It's our country; our economy; our values; our abilities; our limitations; our creativity; our resourcefulness; our fear; our fearlessness; our resoluteness; our inquisitiveness; our diversity; our conservatism; our liberalism; our tolerance.   We've got a ton of all of it.  We just need to be led to use what we got in more valuable, meaningful ways.  When we do that, we'll feel better individually, and only then, feel better as a society.

So, with that, happy 2010, and here's to hoping that we collectively figure out that improving our society starts with improving ourselves. 

The Politics of Patterns

Here is an interesting piece of research that just passed by my desk:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091117/lf_nm_life/us_workplace_leave

Here's a policy -- essentially allowing people to take care of themselves and loved ones -- that is likely seen as yet another left/right issue, where the left cares all about "people" and "their needs" and the right cares about "business competitiveness" and "lazy employees" taking advantage of the system. 

Our political system is so predictable that it indicates to me that we are no longer really looking at issues anymore -- we're only looking at patterns.   And if we're looking at patterns, then what we're really doing is slotting in any given issue into a pre-defined template that has been established in prior political fights.  

This reminds me of one of candidate Obama's key themes, which was that we keep on re-fighting old battles in this country, which is really not moving us forward. 

We're kind of stuck.

Of course, there are real legitimate reasons for disagreement around a policy such as government-mandated sick leave rights for workers.  But the legitimate reasons are largely based on institutionalized distrust of either side's ability to craft policy that doesn't serve their own power-bases' interest first over that of general society. 

For instance, if Democrats craft this policy, it will likely not include enough protections for the small business owner to mitigate fraud and abuse of this new federally-mandated benefit.  And, at a minimum, the Democrats won't frame the language as such to assuage Republicans that they "get" how much small business owners live in fear and distrust of any government control of how they run their businesses -- after all, many have put their entire economic future on the line with the risk of starting up a business.   And the punch line is that Republicans would never even think of crafting such a policy in the first place, as it would tarnish their brand credibility with their important small business and libertarian constituencies.

So, that covers the institutional problem with modern-day politics.  Now let's briefly get into the dynamics of the policy debate itself:

Putting on the analytical hat, both sides have legitimate points:  The research states that a healthier society provides more security to -- and freedom for -- workers, and the counter is that any federally-imposed mandate is ripe for abuse and fraud, and takes another bite out of the freedom of a small business owner to run their business as they see fit.  Yet, I would argue that both sides wouldn't disagree that providing more flexibility -- nay, freedom -- for employees wouldn't be such a bad thing if there were no downside. 

The difference between the two sides is in the assumption set.  If Democrats are ever going to get pro-business and libertarian people on-board with these work/life balance policies, the policy needs to take in account the real issues with implementing a cushion for the workforce.  These issues include people taking advantage of a cushion policy (imagine if 1/2 the employees see this as a federally-mandated 7-day paid vacation, thereby abusing the spirit of the law), and the perceptions that government-enforced policies take control away from the risk-taking, hard-working entrepreneurs (thinking primarily smallbiz here, as corporations can more easily withstand these types of policies).  In addition, the symbolic nature of this type of government mandate rubs completely against the libertarian/small business culture in this country.  Pro-worker policies also works against our not-so-honorable-yet-absolutely-real history of taking advantage of underprivileged immigrant groups.  The other part of history -- the rise and successes of labor unions -- is not seen as so triumphant these days due to the overall poor image that unions now embody. 

Yet, if there is a broad agreement that this research is correct -- that providing workers with more freedom to take care of themselves and loved ones while being employed is a good thing for our society -- then all the activity and politics around this issue will not be focused on what we agree upon; and the policy will be crafted around the politics of passage, not the original intent of the legislation. 

This goes back to trust and powerful interest groups.  In the end, the elected power base will typically push through good ideas, poorly.   Which, ultimately, makes the idea itself look bad.  Which then informs the next debate.   Which, of course, loops us back to the notion that we're battling patterns at this point, not real problems. 

So, I've now outlined my views on some of the systemic issues facing our current politics in the context of a single issue facing our society.   If readers have any ideas or suggestions on how to address the current situation, the blogosphere is listening...

The declining health of the health care debate

Congressman Mike Rogers' opening statement on Health Care reform has made the rounds on the Internets lately (over 1 million views, in fact).  It takes a good conservative with solid beliefs like Rogers to effectively enunciate philosophical principles in a rational tone that doesn't slide into personal attacks or obvious hyperbole.  I'm not sure if everyone can, but I can feel  the common-sense-ness of his argument when I listen to him.  Watch for yourself:



Yet, hyperbole is throughout Rogers' speech, but good luck finding someone to call him out on it.  The reason?  I'd argue that philosophical hyperbole is harder to notice, and is also more difficult to combat.   But that's why we have Between the Columns, right?  Right.

With that, let's dissect Rogers' speech:

He starts by saying that the Democratic plan is "abandoning the very principles of America" by "punishing" the 85% of Americans that have health care insurance to expand coverage to the remaining 15% who don't.

Let's start with his so-called "principles of America" hyperbole.  I just went through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and didn't see anything supporting his statement in our nation's principles.  In fact, I did see in the preamble of the Constitution a little ditty where it says that we, the people are to "promote the general welfare," among other duties.  Arguably, expanding health care coverage is well within our stated principles.  But even if you disagree with this interpretation of the preamble, it's hyperbole to state outright as Rogers does that it's against our nation's principles.

Then there's the hyperbolic notion that supporting the less fortunate among us is "punishing" the majority of us who are insured.   I'm no religious scholar, but I believe most mainstream religions actually promote helping those who cannot help themselves.  But I digress; let's cirlce back to the economic perspective:  The cost of the emergency room visits for the uninsured cost us plenty economically, and the very notion that uninsured people wait too long to get help is unhealthy for all of us.  They spread diseases more readily, and they cost us more when they get treatment. 

By the way, Mr. Rogers, every corporation invests in underdeveloped areas of business by applying the profits of successful sectors disproportionally to these emerging areas.  It's considered smart business in the world of capitalism; not punishment.

I will give Mr. Rogers the point that he is not given any choice but the Democrats' choice or nothing.   That's not hyperbole; that's what you get when you're the minority party.  And Rogers has a fair point about needing a debate around how we solve this problem. 

Regarding cancer treatment in the UK and Canada, it is true that America has the best oncology practice in the world.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with who's paying the bill.  The Democrats are proposing insurance reform, not health care reform.  It's a huge difference, and one that is not nearly talked about enough!  Government insurance will not change oncology health care in this country no more or less than any other private insurance company's rules apply to coverage. 

This is so important, it's worth repeating:  The plans on the table surround insurance not health care.   As a result, we can not compare these plans to socialized health care systems in Canada or Europe.  It's apples and oranges, people.  If you understand this concept, please forward this post around to your friends and family so that they can understand the difference.

Rogers then makes a point around Democrats "not letting the private sector fix this problem."   This is where Republicans are on shaky ground.  The private sector is the sector that has been sending the health care system into the emergency room!  The (impending) failure of the private sector is why President Obama and the Democrats are pushing for a proactive solution to this huge problem.   I think there should be a healthy debate around who is best suited to solve this health care problem, but I do not think is helpful when conservatives turn a blind eye to the very free market systems they cherish.  No system is perfect -- not government, and not the free market.  And if a particular sector is failing a system, then it's time to re-evaluate and try something new.  In my view, that's innovation, not socialization.   And it should go both ways.  And, for better or for worse, this nation elected Obama based in part on his health care reform position.  Elections matter, and there should be a little democratic deference to this reality.

Rogers' last point about other government regulations as a tyranny of government control reminds me of the libertarian who told me that if the government would just leave him alone, he could go ahead and earn a decent living.  I asked him what he did, and he said that he was in home construction.  I wonder how good his business would be if the federal government would stop getting in home owner's shorts with that tax refund?

The Problem(s) with the "Public Option"

Obama's health care reform strategy seems to be finding most of the substantive contention around the "Public Option." I've got some bad news for the administration and its supporters: the Public Option's got issues. A lot of them. And they may even be terminal.

Here's a step-by-step guide to problems with Obama's cornerstone of health care reform:

The Words
The two words in play, public and option, do anything to advance the meaning of the concept they are attempting to describe. "Public Option" reeks of echo-chamber-liberalism-trying-to-market-itself-as-acceptable language that, no surprise, hasn't worked.

The first problem is the word "public." "Public" indicates it's for everyone... like how a public park is for anyone who wants to enjoy said park. Yet, as legislation is evolving, the "Public Option" would not be for everyone. It'd be for some people, and in most bills in development, there are strict limitations on who can join the "Public Option."

Then there's the word "option." This is supposed to indicate that we as Americans will have another option in health care insurance. Yet, again, many will not have this option because -- thanks to the conservatives being so worried that if everyone takes this "option" then there will be no more private insurance -- there are a lot of firewalls defined that don't allow the Public Option to be a viable option for many who currently are covered by private insurance.

The Meaning
"Public Option" not only means nothing without additional context, but it also evokes socialistic sub-contexts thanks to the use of "public." In the supposedly less marketing-savvy days, some really good marketing/branding folks devised the terms "Medicare" and "Medicaid." The talent that named these programs must have long past, because "Public Option" pales in comparison. What does "Public Option" mean with very little context? It means that the public has an option. Why would the 80% of Americans who already have insurance want to pay even more taxes for another option that most won't ever use?

What the public wants is lower costs, better quality and -- when possible -- broader access. None of these meanings are conveyed by the term "Public Option."

The Message
The messengers for the "Public Option" really fumbled by not having a cogent response to the detractors who state that if a public option is so good, then why would we need private insurance companies? Take this to the logical conclusion, and if the government can provide superior services, then we will end up with a "single payer" system, which the Obama administration promises is not on the docket (even though Obama himself claimed that he was personally a proponent for single-payer as a U.S. Senator a few years ago). So, the lack of a strong defense against this Trojan Horse concern has given the detractors credibility because they're gaining traction in the "what comes next" argument.

The Policy
I'm all for Obama's "thread the needle" approach to policy, but moderation is not really in the cards with the American culture these days. As much as the average American is centric/moderate, we as a culture reward Big Plans with Big Visions and Big Solutions. This is why so many embraced the Bush Doctrine of foreign policy even though it's since proven to be a quantifiable foreign policy disaster. We like compromise as a nation, but not at the expense of avoiding the tough choices needed to reform things. Americans like to vote for things that involve no pain, but we also like being told to suck it up and to be tough. The "Public Option" is really a middling policy that isn't really a Big Idea and really doesn't ask us to give much up.

Yet there is a more practical, systemic concern: As much as I think the free market has all but failed America in terms of health care insurance and cost containment, pitting a government plan against private industry is just not the right role for government. Government should not be competing with industry -- ever. It should be enabling economic growth, while protecting the rights of citizens, ensuring fairness, healthy competition, and taking responsibility for the administration of public good works. Under this model of government, health care reform should come in one of two flavors:

1. Go completely single-payer, where we extend the 6% administrative overhead of Medicare to replace the 20-30% overhead of private health care insurance companies. Leverage economies of scale and completely transform our health care system to align with the the notion that our health and well-being is more important than shareholder profits. Single-payer has shown to improve outcomes, life expectancy and costs in many nations already. Yeah, it's got its own problems, but better health care is better health care. And single-payer has proven out to provide better health care on a macro level.

- OR -

2. Play the full regulation card, where the government enforces strict regulations on a completely private health care system. This would keep everything in place as it stands today, but introduce new, tough "rules of the road" that all insurers must abide by, equally. This would include universal access to affordable insurance, no limits on pre-existing conditions, no dropping of coverage, etc. In other words, the government plays the role of citizen advocate and referee, and ensures that the business of health care insurance is more equally balanced between profits and keeping Americans healthy and alive. In addition, the government could and should enforce innovation in automation and administrative cost controls across insurance firms on behalf of citizens. This regulated industry approach has a lot of precedent, and would have the extra-super-double bonus of costing merely a fraction of adding a Public Option to the mix.

Either of these approaches to policy could work, and each has its pros and cons. But at least both of them present a level of policy clarity that people can better understand, contemplate and opine upon. The "Public Option" is so vague and un-descriptive that the idea of "death panels" has risen from the murkiness. It might feel better to blame Sarah Palin (who made Obama's so-called "Death Panels" famous) for derailing the dialog around health care reform, but I'd argue that it's the echo-chamber-policy-wonks who are to blame for poorly naming, positioning and selling health care reform in the name of the "Public Option."

Don't get me wrong -- there are a lot of benefits to the Public Option scheme. It's just that these benefits are not seeing the light of day, in part, due to the issues outlined here.