Excess Baggage…

Just when we thought airline belt-tightening had soared to new heights of absurdity it appears some are dealing with yet another weighty problem: obesity.  A Southwest Airlines captain’s refusal to fly a chubby Hollywood celeb hit the national newswires yesterday, and the event may be a bit more than passengers are willing to swallow.

Like many multi-million mile fliers I can testify to the airlines’ longstanding policy of customer contempt. The “charge more – give less” spiral reducing our air travel experience to little more than a third-world bus ride has been justified by everything from hefty oil prices to fat-cat union demands, despite US protectionism of American carriers from world-wide competition.  Now carry-on baggage rules may define “lap top” in a whole new way, adding new insults to battered passengers as seat belts are reduced to Demi Moore proportions and downsizing takes on new dimensions.  Are they entitled to set their own standards?

As a member of the over six-foot crowd I have obediently contorted over the years as leg room diminished to Lilliputian physiques, even as I’ve silently pondered the likelihood of emergency egress from a canon-ball position.  Years ago I abandoned hope of retrieving anything that might fall on the airplane floor and still haven’t mastered the art of turning newspaper pages or brushing unfamiliar hairs from my lap.  I once shared a scaled back FIrst-Class cabin with about ten members of the Chicago Bulls, but, alas, it was before a time when I could capture the gymnastics for posting on YouTube.  Fortunately, the lofty have yet to be demonized by irritable airline staff, most probably by suffering in silence, but in light of recent events I fear we too are in jeopardy.

In all honesty, everyone fears the prospect of a three-hour flight on which “Jumbo” better describes the person in the neighboring seat than the aircraft, and reaching for your ear phones risks a charge of physical assault.  We’ve all held our breath as the perspiring behemoth squeezing down the aisle stops at our row while blanketing another on each side and announces they’re in the window seat.  No, it isn’t pleasant, but on the other hand it is a fact of life…people come in all sizes.

If the airlines have their way, it won’t be long before we have to pass through cardboard cutouts upon boarding, similar to the little boxes that now measure the size of our carry-on bags.  I’m sure the airlines will never be held to account as a means of “public” transportation, suitable for all persons, and will instead root out and charge for every inconvenience under the ruse of customer safety.  Instead we’ll be confronted with “fat-free flying” or “fat fly free” promos as pricing options during on-line booking, while the airlines continue to dictate their policies of customer selection. Next airlines will charge extra for handicapped passengers, or the aged who might move too slowly, or have a separate section for those failing the antiperspirant swab test.  We already supply photo ID’s before boarding, soon they will be required before making a reservation to ensure we fit a “desirable” profile.

Frankly, I’ve lost my appetite for flying and my taste for all the hassles it involves.  If they do start a weigh-in program I hope they do it at the security checkpoint, at least I’ll have my shoes off and will most likely be stripped down to my underwear.  Given the competitive nature of business today, it must be nice to be in an industry that works at devising ideas to drive customers away. 

Hey, now there’s a really good idea…driving!

Counting Costs…

The decennial population census of the United States officially begins on April 1, a coincidental timing with “April Fools Day” that might be worth noting.  April Fools Day’s aim, by definition, is to “embarrass the gullible”, so perhaps the timing is no coincidence at all.

Census taking is a centuries’ old custom of counting every person in one’s domain with notable beginnings in the Roman Empire, and is most familiar in the biblical account of Joseph and Mary heading to Bethlehem by mandate of Caesar-Augustus.  Even in those days it appears that census taking was a complicated matter, but still nothing like ours.

Just for starters a $326M marketing blitz has been launched just to make us aware that a census will be taken, which included $2.5M for a one-shot ad during the super bowl, a time when Americans are most likely to be receptive to television commercials about their civic duties.  Along with all the other costs for printing, mailing, sorting and personally visiting the 36% of American households who are unlikely to complete the mail-in form, the total tab approaches $15 billion, compared to $4.5 billion to conduct the millennium census in 2000.  

Despite the astronomical cost, funding for the project sailed through Congress, largely because political jobs depend on it.  Population shifts result in reapportionment of congressional districts and, you got it, gains and losses in the number of representatives and in the funds they can steer back home for pet projects.  Washington lawyers also can’t wait for the results, and the hundreds of lawsuits at all levels of government that will be filed in dispute the census methods and findings.

Americans, on the other hand, don’t seem quite so enamored with the idea, particularly in a tight economy.  The highest level of unemployment and the greatest number of mortgage foreclosures since the great depression have the population worrying about a lot more than government nose counting.  Intrusive new government surveillance powers since 9/11 have people questioning just how much they want Uncle Sam to know, and with administrative competency a perennial issue in any governmental program, concerns abound with regard to the handling of sensitive information and the risks of identity theft.  Add to that the estimated 12 million illegal aliens who are a bit touchy about giving immigration officials their name and address especially in light of recent crackdowns, and you have a program facing obvious challenges.  

Once again, there might be some helpful lessons to be learned from our friends abroad.  Developing countries spend anywhere from $1 – 3 per head to conduct their census, which means China’s cost to count the world’s most populous country is likely between $1.3B and $3.9B.  Many European countries do periodic population “estimates” or “samplings” to keep tabs, and nearly all routinely produce population statistics from readily available governmental records, similar to the way US immigration seems to always know whether were in or out of the country.  Besides, there’s a huge amount of US population data on the web as current as 2009 that defines everything from state and local populations to regional population shifts.  Meanwhile, our price tag for the “government authorized” version will be in the neighborhood of $49 per person.  Can’t we get China to do ours cheaper?

Ah yes, nothing but the best for America…so here’s the best part of it all:  After the data is painstakingly collected, family by family, house by house, and every penny of the budget has been spent, the census records will be carefully compiled and placed in our nation’s archives.  Only “aggregate” data, which means top-line compilations virtually identical to what is available on the net today, will be released for public use.  By law the detailed records will be sealed for 72 years under the assumption that most everyone of legal age today will be dead by then…thus avoiding any concerns about confidentiality.  So, in the end, we’re spending $15B for tons of information we’re going to save until no one is alive who has any interest in it. 

Actually, I get the idea… if you’ve ever watched “Raiders of the Lost Ark”,  the Harrison Ford movie, and remember the gigantic warehouse in the last scene…you’ve got the picture.

On Target…

There have been two prominent news stories in the past week, one here in Knoxville and another in Alabama, of teachers who shot colleagues or school administration in retaliation for canceling contracts or failing to grant tenure.  Mechanisms are in place in our schools to check the students for weapons, but I guess no one thought about checking the teachers. 

I decided to take a look at the data about gun deaths and found myself immersed in websites filled with the same polarized and angry disputes that unfortunately seems characteristic of recent debates surrounding many issues facing our country.  However, I learned that in 2006 (the most recent year for which I could get reliable data) there were 30,869 firearm deaths in the US, compared to 45,509 deaths from automobile accidents.  My reason for selecting automobile fatalities as a benchmark is that auto safety and fatality reduction is a high profile, highly regulated and often litigated civic goal.  Any blip on the auto safety radar and all hell breaks loose…just ask Toyota.  But we hear almost nothing about handgun control.

Everyone is well aware of the National Rifle Association’s extremely well-funded lobbying efforts and our elected representative’s all too eager willingness to sidestep anything that even hints at gun control.  But what about ordinary people, why aren’t we outraged, writing to congress, demanding restrictive gun laws, and voting for representatives who will take definitive action to stop the proliferation of hand guns?

What I fail to understand is why would a person even want to own a handgun?  Please don’t tell me “target practice.  I’ve heard that one before and I will concede there is a sporting element, but given the number of handguns in the US the argument would be similar to saying every automobile owner is a race car driver…it just doesn’t add up.

I know a number of people who own handguns.  A few either carry the weapon on their person or keep it in the car, and at least a couple sleep with a handgun in reach.  Most of the gun owners I know, however, have them locked away in safes or hidden in some closet collecting dust…just waiting for that special moment when…?  I don’t get it, and by bigger fear is that one of them might actually use it someday.

There must be some magic to handgun ownership that I miss but our learned statesmen clearly comprehend.  There must be some fundamental, inalienable right that would be violated if handgun laws were changed.  There must be some enormous principle at play that justifies the counter-intuitive behavior of our politicians in the face of an epidemic of gun deaths across our country.  There must be some reason we close our eyes to an enormous problem…

Tongue in Cheek…

I must admit that at times I feel like a foreigner in my own country.  Over the years my good ‘ole American English has suffered (or developed?)  through a hodge-podge of changes brought on by living and working with other cultures.  From time to time I really “put my foot in my mouth” by using a word or phrase that is distinctly un-American.  Here in my adopted home of Knoxville, Tennessee, it’s even worse since the word “y’all” hasn’t as yet slipped into my vocabulary, causing the occasional raised eyebrow as people realize I’m a northern transplant, or worse, a Yankee spy.

Living abroad for so many years I no longer think in terms of “foreign accents” and the stereo-types associated with them.  Similarly, I’ve found people very forgiving of my accent when I attempt to speak other languages.  Perhaps there’s a life lesson in all of this!

Just for fun I printed the list of recognized English dialects from Wikepedia.  Mind that a dialect is a documented language variation, as opposed to an accent which only accounts for pronunciation.

Check the list to find yours, and next time you want to call someone a “foreigner” because of the way they speak English, watch your tongue…

Europe

Great Britain (British English)

Ireland

Isle of Man

Channel Islands

Malta

North America

 

Caribbean

Central and South America

Asia

Africa

Oceania

Bowing to Pressure…

Toyota’s troubles are in the hungry jaws of media coverage and are likely to get a thorough masticating before the quality issues are completely resolved.  My guess is the problems will be solved with quiet dignity, minimal loss of “face”, and no hara-kiri…though a few heads will be silently rolling in the background.

Frankly, I’m not a Toyota fan or an advocate of Japanese cars in general, as I always have the feeling they’re designed for small stature people in crowded cities where speed beyond 30 mph is unlikely if not impossible.  However, after numerous experiences in Japan I do enjoy watching the intricacies of the Japanese business culture, and the Toyota story is evolving into a classic.

An article entitled “Toyota is ‘Facing a Crisis’” (A/P Yuri Kageyama and Malcolm Foster), caught my eye.  Characteristically it appears company leadership is less concerned about what to do than how to do it, leaving customers with a sense of uncertainty about how Toyota will deal with the crisis.  But the Japanese co-author of the article underscored a point typical American journalists might miss.  The answer is in the bows.

Akio Toyoda (yes, I spelled it correctly) is the second Toyota president to apologize for quality.  His predecessor Katsuaki Watanabe stunned reporters in 2006 by bowing low before them before promising to improve quality.  This particular article claims that Mr. Toyoda, on the other hand, “bowed as he greeted reporters, but not in apology”, raising some questions concerning commitment.   So, wuh’s up Dude?

I recall a fairly short period in America when “non-verbal” communication was all the rage, with books on every little body quirk from eye-tics to butt-scratching hitting the best seller list, but reading signals like the depth of a bow is slightly beyond the American imagination and our national psyche.  Americans just prefer blurting it all out in speech or text, sending the message loud and clear with no great deal of interest in who’s receiving, and no particular joy in watching the recipient of our missive squirm with unease or writhe in pain.  Just pushing “send” is all the satisfaction we need.  In Japan, things are just a bit different.

In the end Toyota is fully and entirely a Japanese company despite multi-national manufacturing and local leadership, and it is virtually certain they will willingly make the necessary repairs and restore consumer confidence.  The “crisis”, to use the media vernacular, is nothing more than a crisis of cultural understanding.  All the confidence Toyota customers need is already there; just watch the bows.

Adieu Concorde…

Pardon me if I wax nostalgic today, but the nearly forgotten Concorde super-sonic transport is in the news again with a liability trial unfolding in France nearly ten years after the fatal crash that signaled the demise of the elegant airliner and the end of an avionic age.  US carrier Continental is on trial for allegedly faulty maintenance of their aircraft resulting in the runway debris that caused the Concorde crash.  Various individuals are also indicted in a wide-ranging litigation that spans nearly the entire life of Concorde from original design through its ignoble end.

Much to my regret I never flew on the Concorde, but I was awed by its elegance and fascinated by the thought of flying faster than sound.  When I lived in Paris my Saturday shopping routine nearly always included a visit to the Carrefours Hypermarche at Roissy, virtually adjacent to the Charles de Gaulle airport.  If I timed things just right I was treated to the majestic sight of the Concorde lifting off for destinations unknown with the distinctive whine of its engines and its hawkish snout protruding downward.  It’s unfortunate that such an awesome mechanical marvel became an albatross.  In many ways the Concorde, like the Titanic resplenedent in its exotic excess, was doomed before it’s maiden voyage. 

I was an avid follower of news about the Concorde development back in the ’60s, and the simultaneous American efforts at launching the SST (Super-Sonic Transport) project.  At the time it was clear that a mini “space race” was underway with Europe, fueled by the Lyndon Johnson era paranoia that marked deepening engagement in the Vietnam War and ever greater isolationism.  When it became obvious the Concorde was a sure thing, Congress scuttled funding for the SST, most likely after concerted lobbying efforts from Boeing who had heavily invested in development of the more utilitarian 747.  Not to be further embarrassed by a European technology edge, Congress next refused to grant US flyover rights for the Concorde, and only very limited landing privileges in New York and Washington DC.  The 1000 anticipatory orders for the Concorde, many from US airlines, evaporated overnight, resulting in actual delivery of 17 aircraft used by British Airways and Air France for more than 25 years, a miniscule production number compared to potential.  The extraordinary cost of matinaining a handful of unique airplanes ensured perpetual operating losses, and the unanticipated increases in oil prices sealed Concorde’s doom by crushing any hope of a financial turnaround in the future.  And so, in 2003, the age of elegant aviation ended, much to the relief of the airlines resigned to supporting a costly status symbol.  There is, however, a post-script to the story.

The British Aircraft Corporation and the French company Aerospatiale continued their collaboration to form Airbus and have since created stiff competition for Boeing, the nemesis at least partially responsible Concorde’s failure to thrive.  Once a collaboration with lofty aspirations, today Airbus cranks out the same utilitarian aircraft as its rival, offering passengers less comfort than my first Volkswagen Beetle and turning air travel into an experience equivalent to riding a crosstown bus.  Alas, what began as a quest for industry excellence and technological achievement has become a competition for the lowest common denominator in passenger comfort.

Adieu Concorde…et le temps de voyage d’avion élégant

A Dog’s Life…

Max is our grand-dog.  Normally Max resides with his working “parents”, our son and his family in Chicago, but has been a frequent houseguest whenever we’ve enjoyed holidays in the US.  Now he has been visiting for extended periods, trading the predictably frigid Chicago weather for the unpredictably frigid weather in East Tennessee, and the loneliness of working parents for the attention of stay-at-home grandparents.  At more than a hundred pounds he’s a decidedly oversized Golden Retriever, but definitely undersized for the quantity of affection and companionship he has to offer.

Several weeks ago Max had a minor accident.  While bounding across the lawn with his typical enthusiasm he hit an icy patch, skidded, and split one of his toenails.  A trail of blood laced through the snow as he limped along in pain, clearly in need of professional attention.  We were caught off guard.  Barely sufficiently established in our community to have physician relationships of our own, we hadn’t anticipated needing a veterinarian. 

With a few clicks of the iPhone we located a nearby animal clinic and called them.  The steady, capable voice at the other end decided we should bring him in right away.

Upon arriving at the well-kept but far from lavish clinic we were immediately ushered into a private examination room and given a one-page form to complete with personal contact information, Max’s medical history, and general previous healthcare information.  The doctor arrived before we could complete it, looked over the rabies inoculation and veterinary information we keep on hand, and escorted Max out of the room.  She returned in what seemed like minutes with a much happier dog sporting a bandaged foot which we were told was intended more as a distraction that a necessity.  A supply of meds, a page of detailed instructions, a fairly reasonable bill and we were sent on our way with reassurances that the doctor would contact Max’s home provider if it was required.  The story continues.

Weeks later Max seemed to be favoring his foot again and within the course of a day resorted to pronounced limping.  By the following day he was listless and could hardly use the foot at all despite no apparent swelling or cuts: another call to the veterinary office.  An appointment was granted the same morning; again we were immediately ushered into an exam room; again the doctor appeared in minutes.  A course of antibiotics was prescribed as treatment for a secondary infection, along with an anti-inflammatory and pain reliever, as well as a very detailed explanation of how to monitor Max’s progress and schedule of a follow-up appointment.  A higher bill was presented this time, escalated by the cost of medications as opposed to the office visit.

Max’s response to treatment was almost immediate, but much to our surprise the doctor called a few days later wanting to “check in” on Max, make sure the treatment was working, and to see if there was anything else she could do to support Max or us.  We were astonished.

The ease and simplicity of obtaining medical care for Max was an amazing contrast to human healthcare.  I know it sounds silly to make a comparison, but is it?  Despite their busy practice, the veterinary clinic was able, on two separate occasions, to make an appointment and keep it.  There was no crowded “take-a-number” waiting room, no “sign-in” procedure, and no feeling of being “processed”.  Surprisingly, the doctor was prepared, on time and gave uninterrupted attention.  The entire clinic was filled with useful literature and information, not outdated magazines.  Communication with the previous provider could be easily conducted, if necessary.  Vital signs and significant data was collected and documented.  The “patient” was attended with a minimum of discomfort, respect for privacy, prompt diagnosis and treatment, clear instructions for care, and dispensed appropriate medications, all of this accomplished in a virtually stress-free environment.  The entire care encounter lasted no more than 30 minutes and every aspect was conducted with courtesy and professionalism.  On each occasion the bill was within reason and insurance wasn’t a consideration.  Even more surprising, the physician personally followed up on the patient’s progress. 

Ah yes, a dog’s life isn’t so bad after all.  In some respects it may be better than ours…

Blair-ing Mistakes…

Getting international news in Knoxville is a lot like finding a Kosher deli…it isn’t easy.  That’s not a criticism as much as an observation about my adopted home, where the simple life revolves much more around the “here and now” than the “there and then”.  Nevertheless, the Knoxville Sentinel publishes one or two pages each day about happenings in far off places, and today I spotted an item about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“Tony” always impressed me as a likable, hapless sort of chap, if a bit too desperate to be relevant.  Though I don’t know him personally, I know people who do and they’ve reinforced my view.  Lacking the stature of Bill Clinton or the arrogance of George Bush, Tony Blair was never quite able to achieve the Thatcher/Reagan pinnacle of partnership despite his longevity.  He seemed more like the new-age Yanni of British politics; everyone more or less liked the song but just couldn’t hum along.  A bit too pedestrian for the royals, Blair hung on to his office ten years, the longest running Labour Party prime minister in history, and more notably, the only prime minister to order British troops into battle five times in his first six years.  This latter accomplishment is the substance of the recent article.

It appears Mr. Blair’s legacy is tainted by his commitment of British troops to topple Saddam Hussein in light of the faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction that proved to me a myth.  Just recently he spent six hours on the hot seat regarding the Iraq decision as Britain takes stock of its losses, both human and financial.  Unrepentant, he justifies his position in terms of a world better off without Saddam, but rues the resultant tarnished image.

In America a slightly tainted image is good business.  The book deals are bigger and the memoirs sell better.  Statesmen populate dusty library shelves; bad boys round the talk shows and high ticket speaking engagements.  Perhaps Tony should relax a bit, revel in his moment of infamy and capitalize on the more sordid elements of the story.

In particular question is Mr. Blair’s private April 2002 meeting with then President George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, at which a “deal” might have been struck to support the Iraq invasion.  Whether it was a “clandestine pact” or just Bush and his Hallibuton cronies teaching Tony the Texas Two-Step is a subject for historians to flesh out.  The fact is that Iraq has enormous oil deposits that were poorly managed by Saddam, but now are likely to out-produce Saudi Arabi within the next 6 – 7 years, thanks to “big oil” access and leadership, and the numerous deals penned in the last few months.  Ah yes, the spoils of war. 

Maybe Mr. Blair is just too ambitious, too concerned about being remembered as an important historical figure and an eminent statesman, particularly in a world where fame is measured in sound bites.  He needs to stop worrying about his legacy, take things in stride, and learn a lesson from his former colleague.  President Bush hasn’t been seen or heard since he left office and sits quietly holed up on his Texas ranch, without a care in the world, especially about his legacy, tarnished or not.  But just wait till those memoirs hit the bookstores…!

When The Best Isn’t Enough…

I simply can’t resist the temptation to comment on Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell’s remarks about healthcare during his rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union address.  A lifetime of working in the healthcare business, half of which included involvement in international healthcare systems in more than fifty countries, may not qualify me to be governor of Virginia but it helps me to detect empty rhetoric and poor research when I encounter it.

In case you didn’t hear the Governor’s speech, the following is the excerpt opposing the healthcare reform proposals currently under consideration on capitol hill:

“All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality. But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.”

First, if Americans need a healthcare system that is “affordable, accessible and high quality”, how is it possible to already have the “best medical care system in the world”?  Isn’t the “best” enough?  The fact is Americans do not have a system that is affordable, accessible or high quality, nor do we have the “best” system in the world.  The governor didn’t do his homework.  Had he researched the facts and data, he would have uncovered some startling evidence to the contrary.

Below is a graph showing the per capita healthcare expenditure of the major industrialized countries (left side).  The line from each country points to the average life expectancy (right side) in that country, one of the key indicators of healthcare performance.  Ideally, the line trends upward, indicating that citizens are receiving the maximum benefit from their healthcare investment.  Have a look…

  

In case you find the graph difficult to read, visit the link to read the entire article (http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/cliff-kuang/design-innovation/infographic-day-how-bad-us-healthcare).

Two things are obvious: 1) America’s expenditures for healthcare are “off the charts” compared to other countries, and 2) the return on that expenditure is below average.  Not so obvious to the average American is the fact that every country on the list, except the United States, has a government run or “socialized” healthcare system entirely paid for by tax dollars.

Similar data is readily available concerning healthcare quality.  From medication errors to infant mortality and surgical outcomes facts demonstrate the US is not “the best”, and in many instances has a great deal of room for improvement.  In fairness, in many areas the US consistently performs well in terms of quality, but not nearly the “best” in every category, and disproportionately low considering the reduced cost and increased performance of other countries.

Governor McDonnell’s comments may be political salve for the ears of Americans covetous of being “the best” at everything, but they’re a prescription for disaster.  Playing to emotions rather than presenting facts feeds the fears that drive Americans to hang on to a bloated, inbred, inefficient healthcare system, much to the delight of insurance companies and litigators who benefit from an uninformed, disenfranchised public.

It is absolutely true that Americans need a healthcare system that is affordable, offers universal access and measureable performance.  Political wrangling about how to achieve these goals has spawned contentious debate since the early Clinton administration and in varying degrees since the early sixties, with the American public the perennial losers as costs rise and increasing numbers lose their healthcare benefits.

Perpetuating the illusion that our system is the best in the world hobbles any chance we might have at accomplishing the reformss we need, and entirely discounts the possibility that healthcare systems, processes, innovations and breakthroughs of value to America can exist outside its borders.  American taxpayers can no longer afford the luxury of such arrogance, or abide the effrontery of unsubstantiated, politically motivated cliches as a substitute for hard data.

Political Polarization…

Frankly, I hate talking about politics.  The problems are always so obvious but the remedies extraordinarily complicated, as President Obama is learning.

His State of the Union address met my expectations (see yesterday’s blog).  Basically the President took the high road, demonstrated leadership, and stayed his course.  Whatever one’s opinion of his strategy and direction, he deserves high marks for resisting the temptation to cave-in for a few popularity percentage points.  The fundamental message, however, was crystal clear:  our government is polarized.

Friends and acquaintances frequently ask about my perceptions of the US after spending so many years abroad.  They’re curious about how an American who has been on the outside looking in sees our situation, someone not jaded by the political machinations of the last 17 years.  In a word, my answer is the same as President Obama’s message: a country polarized.

In my view, America’s problems are all fixable.  The economy, employment, energy dependence, real growth, the national debt, and yes, healthcare,  are all problems experienced on a micro scale by every American family who has had to earn an income, balance a budget, raise children and remain well.  Somehow families manage to solve them, stay afloat, and enjoy a little happiness in the spaces between.  Perhaps our politicians need to better understand the fundamental dynamic that keeps a family going: cooperation, everyone pulling together.

What’s changed in America since I’ve been gone is the bitter, divisive polarization of our political parties, and their consistent failure to unite behind workable solutions to today’s challenges.  The animosity and resentment in the House Chamber last night was palpable.  Attempts to find solutions to any of the serious issues facing our nation are futile in the face of obstinacy and intransigence. 

Any seasoned manager will attest that positive results can only be accomplished with a united team.  Allowing room for productive criticism, freedom to express alternative views, and positive reinforcement of voiced opposition are all characteristics of strong teams.  However, when the discussion is over mature teams agree to disagree and unite to get results.  There is no team in Washington and little evidence of the maturity it takes to form one.  But are the politicians at fault, or is it the people who send them there?  I’m not sure.

It seems that nowadays American opinions are formed by the media.  No, not by the reported news, which is certainly something less than objective, but by the views of political pundits who “analyze”, “interpret”, and “formulate” opinions for those of us too busy, or too disinterested, to form our own.  Similar to reality TV, it appears the American public identifies with the personalities of pundits, and then sends the pundits’ choices to Washington rather than making choices their own.  Issues are divided into the “good guy, bad guy” camps that make reality TV so mesmerizing, and then the populace acts accordingly.  The only difference is, government is reality, but unfortunately the game show win-lose dichotomy carries over to real life.  The result is the inertia that President Obama, or any president, is unable to overcome, and the mounting economic and image losses we are experiencing as a nation.

If President Obama were a corporate CEO meeting with his board of directors after one year in the post he would surely be saying the operations team is fragmented, uncooperative, and working against him.  In the corporate world, however, a year is far too long for results, and the naysayers and spoilers would have been long gone and a turnaround in view.  Unlike a CEO, however, President Obama is powerless to change it.  Instead the spoilers are the talk show celebrities and the sound bite generators.  And so it will be as long as we listen, instead of doing a little investigation of our own.

Sadly, what has caused the polarization is our insatiable appetite for the competition, the fight, the outlandish and the bizarre, and the feeling that Washington is some far off Neverland beyond reality where it all happens.  Perhaps President Obama’s comment that “every day is an election” isn’t quite accurate, but it seems that every day is a search for a new American Idol. It’s past time we moved beyond the entertainment factor and demanded business results from the government politicians we employ.

« Older entries Newer entries »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.