Vy Blog

Conservatism and argument

I've heard two interviews with Andrew Sullivan in as many days, both on XMPR.  He's flogging his new book about conservatism and what true conservatism is.

Be a fan or detractor of Sullivan, it doesn't really matter -- look at the content of his thinking.  He has well articulated the problem of conservatism today, in a way that I'd bet get quite a lot of head nods from anyone who bore any conservative credentials but is questioning the direction of political thought in the US.  This is from the description on Barnes & Noble's site and sums his position well (I edited for length):

In The Conservative Soul, Andrew Sullivan...makes an impassioned call to rescue conservatism from the corruption of the Republican far right, which has become the first fundamentally religious political party in America. [Sullivan] argues that conservatives cannot in good conscience keep supporting a party that believes in its own God-given mission to change people's souls, instead of protecting their liberties.

This is interesting to me for two reasons.

First, I've always been a political junkie, and used to be a fairly partisan Republican.  I worked for Republicans on Capitol Hill for a good stretch during and after college, believing mainly in the tenets of limited government, both fiscally (balance your checkbook) and socially (live and let live).  This is when we had people representing us like Charles Mathias and Richard Schweiker instead of Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn.

My, how things have changed in such a short time -- I believe Sullivan is right, that the party has become more a representation of religious thought instead of a paradigm for practical governing.  (So is John Danforth, who used to represent me in the Senate when I lived in Missouri -- he argues roughly the same thing.  And he knows what he's talking about as a Republican, a former senator and an ordained Episcopal priest.)  This is why I no longer classify myself as a Republican -- in fact, I'm very solidly independent.  Neither party does much for me and I'm chagrined that there's no "Pragmatic" party that represents fiscal responsibility and social tolerance.  So at minimum, this is an interesting evolution of political thinking.

Second, it has come to start representing how we define arguments about things that are important to us.  This permeates nearly everything, because how we're represented in government, in fact, does affect everything -- from our businesses to our lives to how we conduct ourselves in the world. 

I've said that I'm bothered by the almost instant viciousness of any "debate" today.  This applies to PR, of course, where you seek to converse and ultimately influence, but also more broadly to just our day-to-day living.  (Man pulls gun on coach to get son playing time.)  Everyone seems angry and combative -- sometimes that's warranted but certainly not as often as it's put to use.

The more we allow extremism to flood our lives, the more at risk we are for operating with blinders on, viewing the world from only one perspective and trying to ram that perspective into some level of permanence.  And that creates conflict in a way that is unhealthy.  And we see it today.

Instead, how about we keep our eye on the ball?

It was pine tar

Of course it was.  Give me a break.

Did it affect the outcome of the game?  Probably not.  That doesn't make it cool, though.  It makes Rogers a cheater, and it shouldn't be excused, even if he pitched a gem for the rest of the game.

Into the weekend

Roundin' third
And headed for home
It's a brown-eyed handsome man
Anyone can understand the way I feel

Cardinals in 7

It nearly gave me an ulcer but the Cardinals -- my favorite sporting team of any kind, anywhere -- won it. 

In hindsight I can now of course admit that it was a hell of a game.  I'd rather, of course, had them up by five going to the top of the ninth rather than 1) rely on your catcher to carry your offense, and 2) rely on your rookie closer to get it done after he loads the bases in the rain in the bottom of the ninth in game seven.  But holy cats, he did it, and what a feeling it is to have the blue ring up a called third strike on the Mets to win the pennant.

I'm not that big into sports.  I don't live and die with a team.  But you can tell I'm foamed up here -- I love the Cardinals.  There are no better fans in baseball, and I'm not using that as a throwaway line.  I'm very serious.  There are no smarter, more involved and supportive, season in and season out, than Cardinal fans.

On to Detroit and then new Busch Stadium.  Swing and a long one, guys.

The Curve

I took a 200-level economics course in college.  Good thing I took it pass/fail.  I learned some things, but not enough to save my GPA had I taken it for a grade.

There is rampant use of graphs and curves in economics.  And in business in general.  Not so much in the practice of PR itself, except probably to interpret business results of a client company or whatever.

So I hacked up a graph that I sort of hold in my head most of the time when I filter information.  It looks like this:

 

(Sorry for the small type.  Like I said, hacked.  I'll refine later.)

If you read here frequently, you know one of my firmly-held beliefs is that you can't reliably create a gap between reality and a desired perception -- which, all too often, is what "PR" (in its most common vernacular) is used to try to do.

How is this evident?  It's all over, and you smell it every day, probably.  (My Dad used to call it his BS Meter.)  In its most innocuous form, it could be:  "For the convenience of our passengers and to speed your boarding process, Lugnut Airlines will opt away from providing blankets and pillows."

You wish you wouldn't have to admit that you're yanking pillows away, and really you'd prefer that no one noticed or knew it at all.  But if you have to address or admit it, you soften the language ("opt away") and try to couch it as a benefit ("for your convenience...").  Does it work?  Maybe it does depending on the listener, but probably it just softens the blow a little, and that's all.  Everyone sees through it.

It of course applies everywhere.  When suspicious Rose Law Firm billing records (that may have demonstrated some malfeasance up here) turned up in the White House, Hillary said this was "good news" because now they knew where they were.  O happy day!  Or one of my favorites, on the other side of the political spouse aisle, is when Marilyn Quayle, asked about voter nervousness about her husband as Vice President, said it was a good thing because it demonstrated that everyone wanted George Bush (the first one) as President.

I used to get questions from clients all the time about how to "package" and "spin" information that would make the situation look like something it isn't exactly, in the hope it would influence thinking or behavior in a certain way.  Well, you don't -- you can't.  We all live in a world that we see through our own lenses, but there is commonality to much of what we perceive, and that includes the ability to see through efforts like that.

There also is the general belief among many, I find, that makes the leap between packaging and buying.  Many execs think if only you package, it will be received exactly as you intended in the listener's mind, he'll think the way you want him to think and planets will align in your favor.  You tell me.  Does it usually work that way?

The general rule, I believe, is that if you don't want something found out, it's better not to do it.  If you need to impart information, it's better to do it directly and honestly (and by directly I don't mean hostile -- I mean matter-of-factly) and simply.  That's what people respect, deserve and expect from you.

So, if you find yourself slaving over wording and "positioning" when you're grappling with a hard issue, take another look at it and ask what would happen if you just take things head-on and handle them in an upright way.  It usually feels a lot better.

I'd love feedback.

Transparency, and knee-jerking

Mike Manuel makes it official.  Transparency, surely the current occupant of the most overused word in business, is now the official euphamism for honesty.  But you can have plenty of the latter with almost none of the former, and still be good with it, correct?

Good follow up in Popular Mechanics about the Cory Lidle accident from the perspective of a piston, fixed-wing pilot.  Never mind all the romanticism at the end -- the author does a good job explaining what really happens and what you need to do to fly safely in this corridor.  But, never mind the thousands of flights conducted safely in that corridor by the day up until last week.  That's not at all relevant.  The FAA closed the airspace.  Much more brilliant solution.

Into the weekend

I teach them how to play guitar
They show me how to dance
We have rum from the Caribbean
And Burgundy from France

Friday roundup

There might still be a few of you who read this blog.  If you do, thanks.  Forgive me for not posting so regularly.  Things are just busy and I don't see them letting up soon.

Thoughts in no particular order:

• Do you blog?  Take care in the area of potential defamation.  The telling line:  "Scheff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. 'I'm sure (Bock) doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear,' Scheff says. 'People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that.'"  No hiding behind keyboards.
• Warner won't run for President.  He cites a young family and the need for a "real life."  I just was talking yesterday with a friend who serves as an elected official on his aspiration to higher office -- he's concerned about the impact on his marriage and young children.  Highly valid concern.  As attractive as the idea of public service is to me, I'm vary in my opinion about the level of impact you can actually have to accomplish any kind of meaningful agenda.  And it consumes a great deal of you as a person.  I don't know that I could tolerate that until my children were more independent.  I imagine that scares off a number of people thinking about running for something, and there are many certainly more capable than I.
• Stop writing loose when you mean lose.  You don't loose your favorite pen, you lose it.  The Yankees didn't loose to the Tigers.  Stop it.

On the PR / marcom front:

• If you're a tech PR practitioner, I'd like to invite you to a teleseminar I'm hosting in November.  It's titled: "Using Technology for PR, Doing PR for Technology."  The objective is to understand how to use technology to enhance -- effectively -- the practice of PR, and also how to communicate effectively about technology when you're representing innovators.  I'm moderating, but I'm going to stay quiet and let the guests do the talking, because they're smarter than I am and have great stuff to relate:  Mike Manuel, head of the Social Media Group for Voce Communcations (and Media Guerrilla blog author) will speak, as will David Kesmodel, author and technology reporter, most recently for The Wall Street Journal.  E-mail me if you're interested -- and PRSA will publish more info soon.

More on PR:

• Andy Woolard has a great post about being hot.  That is, in PR, are you creating the fad of the moment (hot), or something that will stand up over time?
• My opinion: Wal-Mart and Edelman stepped in it, badly, by creating a fake blog, supposedly of two people in an RV traveling around and staying in Wal-Mart's parking lots.  Why did they step in it?  Because it was phony, dishonest, disingenuous.  It was not honest or authentic.  That deserved to be outed.  John Wagner posts here, very intelligently, about it, and I like what he says: You can't run a corporate communications effort like you would a political campaign. 
• I agree with Jeff Risley here, when he says consumers are in more control than ever, and it's much harder to speak with any authority to them, and thus influence their thinking in a way that benefits you.  Just the way of the world now.  50 years ago, my grandmother might have believed Arthur Godfrey said Westinghouse made the best stove, but try throwing that by a consumer today.  She's going to believe her friends more than she will the old "authoritative" command-and-control PR style.
• Patricia Dunn first.  Now Kansas City Council members are apparently being investigated by the City Manager, trying to find out who leaked what to the local newspaper.  Looking at phone records, etc.  The subtext to both of these, and most efforts like this, I think is: "I want to control everything I can about how this body is perceived."  Which of course is not doable, and makes efforts like these look, in retrospect, ridiculous.
• Every time I go for a while without reading Tom Asacker's blog, I'm sorry I waited so long before reading it again.  Great post here on marketing.

Have a good weekend.

The discussion of what we don't know about

The NYC plane crash: 

We all know the "news" is distorted.  Coverage of the Lidle accident is another example.  It distresses me particularly because I have a pilot's license and know about the flight rules that apply to different areas.

The truth is that aircraft of many types regularly fly without talking to air traffic control.  In good weather (under what's known as VFR, or visual flight rules), pilots take the primary responsibility for "separation," or staying out of each others' way.  It is perfectly safe.  In very congested places, even near more than one very busy airport, you'd be surprised at how well this works.  In fact, it works incredibly well overall. 

As usual, we don't get all exercised about something that works well nearly 100% of the time until it doesn't work one time.

How many reports on the news have you seen where the reporter, in mock amazement, says, "Lidle wasn't even talking with controllers!"  Well, stupid, he wasn't required to, and you don't know enough about what you're reporting to know what kind of impact an ATC contact requirement would have.  Here are two I can think of right away:  1) The load on controllers in the busiest air corridor in the US would go way up, with little discernable benefit.  2) You would impede a lot of commercial activity -- there are hundreds of thousands of arrivals and departures per year in and out of Manhattan by helicopters alone.  Welcome to the law of unintended consequences.

The primary duty for ATC is to handle separation of IFR (instrument flight rules -- mostly commercial) aircraft, and in a list of descending priorities, separation of VFR aircraft is literally at the bottom.

The solution here in my mind is to not close off the airspace.  The solution is to have pilots who know what they're doing fly in that airspace, and pilots who don't to stay out of it.

I'm sure someone is saying that somewhat effectively, but s/he's being well-drowned by the hysteria.

Now, how does this relate to reporting?  Like this:  Heat does not resolve issues.  Light does.  Heat agitates.  Light does not.  Of course, heat is good for ratings, which is good for advertising, which is good for revenue.  I don't have a lot of hope for light over heat. 

So, if that's the case, and if we as news consumers continue to decide to use hysteria as the input for our decision-making, then the "garbage in, garbage out" rule applies very fully.  We'll end up with knee-jerk resolutions that might make some people feel better, but in reality won't help at all.

What always bugs me about situations like this is the discussion of what isn't known.  You may know that you can fly VFR below 1,100 feet around Manhattan, clear of LaGuardia airspace, but you may not know why that's safe.  You're assuming it's not, when in reality you don't know.  And presenting that in an incredulous, know-it-all way does not help anyone at all.

Into the weekend

To touch is to heal
To hurt is to steal
If you want to kiss the sky
Better learn how to kneel
On your knees, boy