At least five times in the last 90 minutes I have heard commentators say something about the cyborg that occurred in the Florida primary.  I was sure that someplace along the way someone would stop and define the word, but, alas, it was used and then passed over as if everyone in America would know what they meant.   I’ll bet not.  I didn’t have a clue as to the meaning of the word, and even trying to put it in the context of the conversations didn’t get me there.

Finally, in desperation, I went to the dictionary where I discovered that cyborg is  a portmanteau, combining the words cybernetic and organism.  Thus, a cyborg is an organic  being who is assisted in its existence by electronic technology.   Cyborg is a word that is usually used in science fiction literature, depicting a human (or almost human) being with technology built into its body, giving it extraordinary powers unavailable to the ordinary human.  Much of today’s sci-fi media depends upon the cyborg phenomenon.

In the case of today’s news, however, the term cyborg is being used to indicate that the candidates for the Republican nomination for president were dependent upon their electronic support, i.e.: television ads.    The talk shows this morning were heavily laced with conversations, complaints, criticisms, analyses, and commentary on the prolific use of negative advertising in the Florida primary.   Something like 92% of the massive number of ads being aired in Florida were deemed “negative” and most people seem to think that Romney won as a result of his barrage of negative ads destroying Newt Gingrich’s chances for winning.  Romney spent over $15 million on his ads.  Gingrich was closer to $3 million.   The combination of these figures is obscene, but pundits seem to believe they were effective.

I suppose it depends upon what you mean by “effective.”  There is no question that Romney was the winner, and the double-digit victory makes him a run-away winner.   This was no Iowa where he and Rick Santorum ended up in almost a virtual tie, with Santorum squeezing out a 28 vote “victory.”    Clearly, Romney smothered the other three prominent candidates in Florida.

If, indeed, Romney’s “victory” is attributable to his cyborg partnership with television, I find myself questioning where we find ourselves in the whole question of elections.

• It is clear that the more money one has to spend, the more television coverage (he) is going to have.
• If “negative advertisements,” in which a combination of truths, half-truths, and lies are employed, what does that say about our vulnerability as voters to sort out the pertinent facts about a candidate?
• Is the “winner” of an election really the person we have seen in the ads, or has a faux persona been created which will evaporate after the election?
• What is the moral/ethical standard for elections, and are we stuck with it?

It does no good to be a “retro” thinker on this matter.   We can’t simply go back to the “good old days” of campaigning from the back of a train, or debates that look more like a Harvard-Yale academic discourse.   That’s enticing, but it’s too late for that.  We live in an age of electronic wonders which control much of our incentives for purchasing, including the purchasing of a candidate.  After we have been disgusted and offended by the tone of political advertising, we are left with the need for people to vote, knowing that they have been affected by what they have seen on television and the internet and what they have heard on radio.  We can’t stuff the toothpaste back into the tube.

My take on this matter is to

• finally pass legislation which forbids SuperPACS and wealthy individuals from controlling the finances of a campaign
• establish standards, with penalties, for negative advertising which is based upon personal attack and lies
• seek an agreement among the media leadership regarding their culpability in promoting such advertising

Right … like television stations who move from working in the red to working in the black/green as a result of political advertising are going to agree to restrictions on themselves!

Regulation of political advertising isn’t even in the hands of candidates any more.  It has slipped into the hands of third-party groups over which (supposedly) candidates have no control.   It’s a messy, messy road we have chosen to follow.  The potholes in that road cause damage to the political process and the dream of Americans to elect the most honorable, capable people to the roles of leadership.   I, for one, resent being duped by cyborg mentality.

Photo Credit: Stefani Baynum

The marathon runner crossing the finish line is the most vivid illustration of someone who has striven.  After months and months of training and preparation, the runner puts the last effort of a 26.2 mile, grueling race behind (him) and thrusts his body across the line, sometimes collapsing, having given his last ounce of energy to the effort.   He has striven to accomplish something that even he may not have believed to be possible those months ago.  The medal on a ribbon which is placed around his neck to signal that he has completed the 26.2 is symbolic.  The real acknowledgement is within himself.

I heard Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski on the Morning Joe Show yesterday talking about American greatness, and he used the word striven in the context of the effort America has demonstrated in its attempt to be a leader among nations.  His optimism for America’s ability to return to a position of international greatness was remarkable and refreshing in the midst of great negativity by pundits of all stripes.

The question is, does strife to regain greatness amount to a sufficient entity to assure that greatness?  Can an individual or a nation “assure” its greatness simply because it strives for it?  Obviously, it takes more than individual effort.   The quality of greatness must be recognized by others before the awarding of greatness can be valid.   It is like the proverbial philosophical question of whether the sound of a falling tree in the midst of a deserted forest can said to have existence.  Does not the translation of the airwaves emitted by the crashing tree have to excite the eardrums of a living being in order to be valid?

Our nation’s declaration of greatness can fall on deaf ears and can be invalidated by perceptions of less than greatness by others.

But the optimism expressed by Dr. Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor to President Carter,  is a powerful testimony which deserves acknowledgement.   It is too easy to discount the greatness of America by recounting the errors we as a country have made and ignoring the accomplishments which overshadow them.  In this age of disparagement of greatness and the taking of pleasure in trashing good done by an individual or an accumulation of individuals, it is too simple a task to denigrate their strife to do good.

That is not to be Pollyanna about this nation’s recent history.  There are many things to diminish the record of goodness of this country, the Iraq war not being the least by far.  Bad choices and boundary crossings by American citizens and the nation as a whole are too easy to recognize to be able to ignore them.    But the heart of America is good and the intention of the American people is to do good.  We have not always demonstrated that through the leaders we have chosen and the policies we have promoted.   But, especially in the post-9/11 world in which our confidence was shaken and our grief was evident, those leaders and policies have been as much a demonstration of post-traumatic stress as anything else.  We have been attuned to detect such a phenomenon in military personnel returning from war or family members rebounding from a disaster.  But we are slow to recognize the PTSD in our nation and the ways in which it has affected us.  Some continue to demonstrate that disorder, including some who would be leaders of our nation in all three branches of our government.

But Dr. Brzezinski is correct:  this country has striven to be great and magnanimous and will continue to do so.  Like those who suffer with PTSD, it may take years for us to discover how to live that out in legitimate and sincere ways.  And, in the right moment, it will take world opinion, not our own declarations, to establish that the United States is again a great nation.   In the meantime, it is required of us to recognize our national humility and be willing to receive the assistance needed to grow and heal.   We begin with the recognition of, and embracing of, our soul.  That calls for the demonstration of reality, not fantasy.   As we are about to identify the leadership who will lead us into the next years of our striving for goodness and greatness, that demonstration is vital and urgent.

Photo Credit: runner

My wife reports that one of the symptoms of dementia may be a confused diurnal/nocturnal schedule.   When this occurs, the patient wants to sleep during the day and to roam and be active during the night.   Light doesn’t seem to matter.  In the confusion of the mind the time clock within the patient/resident is reversed.  It is not uncommon in facilities dedicated to the care of persons with dementia.  The staff is aware of the condition and can adjust to it or even work with the resident to try to train their mind to get back on a “normal” day/night schedule.  But it is not always a successful training.

I expect that there is some of this confusion present in the lives of persons who have jobs that begin at 11:00 at night and end at 7:00 in the morning.  Friends I have known who have encountered this job requirement say that getting used to the shift is difficult at first, but that eventually a sense of normality sets in.   The difficulty comes on days off and holidays or vacations when the person has to shift to accommodate their family.   It takes time to make that adjustment, and it is just about then that the vacation is over and the re-adjustment to nocturnal life reappears.

It is clear to me that some people are born with greater energy, alertness and productivity during a nocturnal schedule.   I am clearly a diurnal person and would have great difficulty needing to be productive at 3:00 in the morning.  When the evening shadows begin to occur my energy level decreases, and by the time the darkness of nightfall has descended, I’m ready for sleep, whether in a chair or in my bed.   My wife, on the other hand, has always been someone who gets energy in the late evening, and would be just fine operating long after I’m toast.  She, like other nocturnal people, has adjusted to what I would call the “norm” of diurnal activity, and does just fine.  I don’t think I’d be as good if I had to make the shift to night-time obligations.

I really enjoy The Late Show with David Letterman but seldom get to see the whole show.  I’m more a Morning Joe person these days, relishing the clarity and energy I have at the early hours of the day.

The phenomenon of diurnal reversal is clearly demonstrated in younger generations, for whom the “evening” may begin at 11:00 or midnight.   Some clubs or entertainment locations don’t even begin their stage performances until those hours, knowing that the young people will wander in then and expect to be there until the wee hours of the morning.

One of my friends was the chaplain at a college where he established a campus worship service on Thursday evenings at 10:00.   It was an hour that fit the more nocturnal schedule of the students, who were just getting energy at that time.   The numbers of students attending at that hour were far more significant than at the traditional 10:00 or 11:00 hour on Sunday morning, when most students were still sleeping, having been active until 3 or 4:00 or later.  It made sense.

In one of the town where we have lived, there was a barber shop/style salon that didn’t open until 10:00 at night.  The barber said that the schedule began a long time ago when shift workers were better able to get to him at 11:30 at night rather than during the day.   All night supermarkets and discount department stores are not without customers at 2:00 in the morning.  Some people time their shopping intentionally for the late night hours when they are more alert, and there is less confusion in the aisles.

The recognition of this phenomenon of nocturnal/diurnal “confusions” may be a marketing factor for businesses that are equipped to accommodate the challenge.   Just don’t start calling me in the middle of the night to market your services or goods.  I’m a diurnal person and have no desire to change.

Photo Credit: Bob King

Given my history of hospitalizations over the past year or more, when I hear the word recovery my mind moves directly to the recovery room.  It’s that very important location in a hospital where you are moved for a temporary stay directly after having surgery or some other procedure.  The main reason they take you there instead of back to your room is to watch you until your anesthesia has worn off.    There may need to be some r.r. procedures, as well.  But the message of being in the recovery room is that you have survived the surgery and you are on your way to being well again.

Similarly, of course, there is the use of the term recovery when referring to a person who suffers from an addictive behavior such as alcoholism or drug addiction.  After a crisis (or maybe an intervention) a person may spend several weeks in a recovery/rehabilitation facility where they are detoxed and re-programmed in their life choices.   Again, the message is that the person has attained a potential level of stability in life and the possibility of living clean.

In both cases above an awful lot of the message of  the recovery process depends upon the patient and (her) willingness to listen to advice and then follow it.   Recovery rooms and recovery institutions are not magic pills which solve all the problems.  They are transitory places and programs which offer the possibility of overcoming the problem.

All this is by way of getting to the issue of economic recovery.   I’m inspired by an article published by Robert Kuttner on the Huffington Post.   This article, “The Great Deflation,” takes issue with the idea that what we are experiencing is anything like that which America experienced in “The Great Depression.”     By this point in the 1930′s, Kuttner writes, we were experiencing significant signs of recovery based upon bold moves taken by the government to correct the problems which caused the financial crisis.   Those efforts proposed and undertaken by the current administration, Kuttner says, are meek and half-hearted.    We require a bolder, more dramatic response which not only creates jobs and bolsters industry, but it also inspires the people and overcomes the negativity which seems to be damaging any attempts made to get us moving.  I agree with his point, but I also find myself needing to remember that there are significant differences in the economic world today than in the 1930′s.

1. We live in a more global economy.   Our economic problems are directly related to the near-collapse of the economy of Europe and other volatile economies around the world.   Every morning we rush to discover what has happened in Japan, China,  and the European communities before Wall Street opens.    In addition, our import and export balances are not as US-focused as they were in the 1930′s.  The emergence of strong industrial communities in Asia has changed the pattern dramatically.  The American government can no longer wave the magic wand and fix the problems of national or international economics.
2. We live in a turbulent political era which differs greatly from that of the 1930′s.  The nastiness of Washington politics is a deterrent to productive legislative activity that can provide the solutions we need.
3. I believe we are experiencing a racial issue which is a stumbling block to progressive response.   The 800 pound gorilla sprawled out on the floor of the living room is the recognition of President Obama as a man of color.  I believe there are those who, because of race, are determined to defeat him and remove him from office.  The issue is couched in all kinds of covering excuses, but I believe that there is a root racism at play which prevents him (and his proposals) from being successful.*  Therefore, his programs are weak, almost anticipating rejection.
4. World War II was directly related to the recovery from the Great Depression of the 30′s.  It was the reason that huge amounts of money were pumped into the economy and jobs were provided to unemployed Americans.  Even given the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan, there is no comparison with the economic benefits of World War II.   I am not promoting the idea of a war to overcome our economic problems; I’m just stating a historical fact.

The prospect of continuing in this economic morass for numerous years is frightening.   Unless the government (not just the President) takes our situation more seriously and becomes creative in reforming our economic systems immediately the future is bleak.  Our nation has been rolled into the recovery room, and the potential for successful rehabilitation is present.   But if we continue to fight the therapists, ignore the prescriptions and return to practicing  damaging behaviors, the prognosis is negative.

* I have used the term “I believe” intentionally to make the point that this is my opinion and is not reflective of any other person or agency’s published opinion.

Illustration Credit: children’s hospital

The late 60′s and early 70′s were my cultural puberty.   I was still quite fuzzy and I hadn’t yet developed my adult voice.  I was in the process of becoming culturally aware and my attempts at demonstrating it were fumbled and awkward.

It was during that era that a phenomenon covered his country that has come to be known as the emergence of a counter-culture that challenged the norms and created chaos in the lives of families and communities.   Society didn’t quite know what to do with it, and neither did I.   I was surrounded by it, enveloped by it, and admiring of it.   But my bell-bottomed pants looked silly on me and if my hair got too long it drove me crazy until I cut it back to my normal style.  I was not a Woodstock person, didn’t understand the protest movement, and walked on eggshells when it came to making a serious political statement.

Slowly, ever so slowly, my comfort level with counter-culture increased.  But by the time I came to embrace much of the philosophy, theology, and political theory of the counter-culture it was somewhat the norm.  The established culture had found itself in agreement with much of what had been jarring just a decade earlier.   The differences between the culture and the counter-culture were less well defined.

I had forgotten what it was like to be confronted by ideas and concepts that challenged the norm in such an open and defiant way.  But then, last night, I went to a Ford Hall Forum in Boston and spent 90 minutes with the founding editors and writers from the preeminent counter-culture newspaper in Boston, The Real Paper.   As the host said when she concluded the evening, it was exhausting.  The humor, pathos, energy and talent demonstrated by the five originators of the paper was infectious.   They had done something that had never been done before and they did it well.   Just recalling the story created an energy that made me long for those days again.  It took a taxi drive back to South Station to catch my train home before reality began to creep back in and I remembered how difficult and tragic those days were.

The Real Paper was an experiment in truth-telling which had no limiting relationships.   Writers and editors felt no responsibility to soften their words, even if the subject of their articles happened to be someone they agreed with or with whom they had a personal relationship.  But the target of their journalism was the person in a leadership position who was deceiving the public.  Nobody was spared that microscopic discovery.

The question was asked over and over again, “Could The Real Paper happen today? ”

The answer seemed to be that it does happen, but in a different medium.   Social Media has adopted the role which was played by The Real Paper.   Methods and styles which were revolutionary in the 60′s and 70′s are the norm today, and have, to some extent, been adopted even by the culturally-consistent print media.

But the telling comment was from a former Real Paper journalist who said, “It isn’t as easy to identify the enemy today.“  In those days, he said, the enemy was clear.   Vietnam, racial injustice, the Pentagon Papers…these were real and they were visible.  Today’s immoral or illegal cultural issues are masked by their acceptance and employment  by the majority.  The counter-culture is harder to discern and may be single-subject focused.

I found myself energized by the experience of the men and women of the panel.   They were smart.  The years may have changed the color of their hair and the size of their midsection, but the passions they expressed are still vibrant and relevant.   I found myself embarrassed by my willingness to equivocate or seek a safe middle position so as to not disturb a segment of my readers.

As the voice of this nation becomes more and more rigid and isolationist, shutting out dissent and embracing walls rather than building bridges, it makes me wonder if there will arise another counter-culture voice.  If so, it won’t be able to model itself after The Real Paper … in the sense that it won’t be able to be a print newspaper with a limited circulation.   But the social media instruments which are becoming the voice of the people may become the means by which a counter-culture, not seeing itself dependent upon the dominating leadership, speaks out again.  If not its method, but The Real Paper’s  passion and its values may prove to be a mentoring phenomenon.

Photo Credit: digitalrich

One hundred and fifty years ago the Industrial Revolution was thriving in Rhode Island.  What is now know as the Blackstone River Valley was the place where the Industrial Revolution in this country  was founded and it was powered exclusively by the powerful hydroelectric plants along the rivers.  They led down from the heart of New England and rushed to the sea…without pausing.

Water rushing over the man-made dams turned water wheels and then turbines to create the energy that was needed to power cotton mills, furniture factories, paper companies, felt mills, and the other various and sundry industries that populated the corridor.

Over the years the cost of operation of those mills increased and owners discovered that they could produce the same items at a cheaper cost in the South, where labor was less expensive.  Slowly the mills closed until they were just ramshackle remnants of their former glory.   Employment, tax revenue for communities, and product availability diminished and eventually the factories were just skeletons along the rivers that kept rushing by.

Over the past decades there has been an increasing interest in reshaping those abandoned mills into apartments, studios, condominiums, and incubators for small business.  But the rushing water continued to be ignored.

Today, with energy costs soaring and the massive dependence upon foreign sources for fossil fuels, interest in re-imagining the use of hydroelectric power has emerged.   New technology makes the capturing of the power of moving water less expensive and more efficient.   In 2006 I was introduced to the simplest of mechanisms which can be placed in the shallowest of river beds.  As the water pours over them the smaller, but more efficient, turbines churn out electricity which is capable of supporting a small community.

Governor Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island speaks with great enthusiasm for the rediscovery of hydroelectric power through re-visitation of the existing dams  along the Blackstone Corridor.  Fish ladders for the valuable natural resource of spawning fish have been constructed to overcome the interruption in that concern for the environment. Hydroelectric energy may not be sufficient to provide the entire power package for Rhode Island, but it can be a huge piece of that conglomeration of effort.   When combined with wind and solar power the state could become almost totally independent of fossil fuels in a reasonably short time.

Rivers don’t stop flowing.   Water in those rivers is unending, sometimes to the point of being overabundant.   It is not a commodity that damages the environment under normal circumstances; it enhances it.   The air we breathe is not polluted by it.   Having passed through turbines it is free to continue on its journey to the sea where it becomes a commodity to encourage tourism.  Its presence and use in the production of energy is a win-win situation, even to the point of producing power which is marketable to a national power grid.

One of the weaknesses of The State of Rhode Island is that it is small, having a population of less than a million people.  That makes its population about the size of a moderately large city in other parts of the country. Its small population calls for tax burdens and resource distribution which can be a heavy burden.

However, one of the assets of The State of Rhode Island is that it is small.   Such a factor as hydroelectric power is feasible as a resource for an entire population.   In the great scheme of things, its assets overpower its weaknesses.

Photo Credit: lenntech

I suppose that … literally … the photo tells it best.  A stump speech can best be delivered while standing on a tree stump in the midst of an audience.   But the term has come to mean something broader.  A political  stump speech is one prepared by a campaign committee to include the specific, “on message” points which best characterize a candidate’s platform.  In today’s political climate it might highlight a selection from this list:

• the economy
• jobs
• taxes and cuts
• the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan
• the crumbling infrastructure
• health care
• marriage
• the environment

However, a good stump speech will not include all of these issues.  The candidate and campaign committee will choose two or three (at the most) which are primary among the candidate’s passions and pound them out every time (he) gathers a crowd.  A stump speech is recognizable to the public for highlighting them with energy and creativity.

The most dangerous thing a candidate can do is to get “off message.” That happens when a heckler or a reporter asks a question about a current conflict, a tasty rumor, or another candidate’s accusation.   If the only thing the audience remembers about the event is the  candidate stumbling around over an off message question, the event was wasted.   They should go away knowing how the candidate perceives the answers to the two or three primary problems or issues confronting the constituency.

In the “old days” a stump speech might be heard from the back end of a Pullman car on a train.   That was in the glory days of rail travel.  Today it is more likely in front of a campaign bus, or in front of a clutch of microphones at an airport.  Campaign committees like to choose select locations like a chained fence in front of an abandoned factory,  inside a thriving new industry, on a college campus, or in front of a firehouse or police station.   The pictures of the event tell the story as much as the speech.

Having watched the past few weeks of the gearing up to the 2012 elections, it gives me pause to wonder if the days of traditional campaigning are waning.   Given the emergence of new technology which is readily available to the general public, I question whether there is a “turn off” factor with younger people who see the traditional speech setting as archaic.*

Some candidates are experimenting with social media as a means of getting the campaign message out.  But a great deal of that is bumbling and ineffective.   I get two or three messages a day from “Barack Obama” on Facebook, but it is clear that they are not written by, or even close representations of the voice of the President.  I have begun ignoring them just as I do the barrage of ads from Amazon.com.

In this transitional era from Pullman car stump speeches to Twitter, there is a lot of serious research to be done.  The day of dignified local political supporters in gaudy red/white/blue hats, sashes and signs held aloft may be drifting away.  The more they resemble a Shriner’s Convention, the more they detract from the seriousness of the message of the candidate.  The emerging generation of voters will, in all probability, be more attracted to a well-prepared video than to a Spencer Tracy speech from a Pullman Car  in Peoria.  And, just to add fuel to the fire, has anyone yet thought about animation?

Photo Credit: shark

*I’m not unaware of the craziness of the Tea Party crowds who revel in nostalgic political gatherings, replete with costumed patriots and revolutionary war heroes.

When you look at the illustration to the right which depicts the solar system it gives you a basis for understanding the word systemic. There is an order, seemingly a plan, by which the planets relate to the sun.  It is predictable, allowing us to develop a calendar and giving us a road map  by which we can make assumptions about climate issues.  For the most part, there is little variation in the patterns of rotation and circulation.

That same adjective, systemic, can be applied to other aspects of existence and human interaction.  There are systemic patterns by which organizations, families, nations, and species function.  They are observable, traceable, and capable of being constructed in the absence of a system.

For instance, we talk frequently about a school system, in which there is a systemic pattern of expectations, contracts, procedures, and consequences.  Some work better than others, but systemic is not a biased concept.  There are healthy systems and there are unhealthy systems.  Those who choose to function without a systemic approach lapse into chaos and dysfunction.

The same can be said about political systems.  There are established patterns of organization, procedure, and expectations.   The goal of a systemic approach to government is order and security.    When the system is challenged or revised we experience dysfunction.  Sometimes it is temporary as we adjust to a new system.  Sometimes it is fatal.

What we have just experienced in the United States is a challenge to the systemic expectations the citizenry has for the way in which government functions.  In medical circles, there is a term called an “insult.” A physician may say that an object, infection, or physical blow has created an “insult” to the orthopedic  system.   It calls for some kind of response to remove the object, overcome the infection, or repair the damage done by a physical blow.

The introduction of the Tea Party and other uberconservatives to the governmental system in an organized, concerted  manner has caused an insult to the governmental system as we know it.  There have always been people on the far right and the far left.   The system has a place for them and has either benefited from their input or tolerated their ranting.   There are occasions when their input has been the source of a major turn-about for the government.

In this case, the strength of the organization of the Tea Party and its colleagues did more than influence the government.  It was allowed to capture the government and hold it hostage until it got its way…or thought it was going to get its way.   In the end the product which is before us is much tamer than might have been expected.  However,  in arriving at this product the strength of the traditional political parties was sapped and valuable principles were forfeited.    The leadership of the legislative and executive branches of the government misread the strength and organization of the new voice, and the system was not designed to respond to it effectively.

It is not a stretch to say that this exercise in legislative procedure is the kind of insult to a systemic approach which is  game-changing.  The system of government as we know it may be undergoing a radical change to one which is less predictable and lacks systemic patterns to account for it.   In the end  what we may be facing is the need to re-evaluate the system we call government and ask ourselves what changes are called for.   We cannot bear the kind of abusive, destructive dialogue which accompanied this episode on a repeating basis.  It will destroy our government and destroy our stature in the global scheme of things.

It is not a matter of winners and losers.  And it will do us no good if we just wring our hands and bemoan the nastiness.  What is called for is a systemic evaluation of what we mean by government.  It may be long overdue.

Photo Credit: http://www.universetoday.com/15451/the-solar-system/

This isn’t the first time I’ve posted about the word transparency. I looked at it more generically in a previous blog posting and have mentioned it off and on in other postings.

But something occurred to me when I was watching Morning Joe this morning, listening to a vocal member* of the Tea Party rant about the lack of transparency in the Gang of Six negotiations taking place in Washington.  There was also a significant rant about the lack of transparency on the part of the President as to his “plan” to avoid the financial melt-down over the debt crisis. The host, Joe Scarborough, questioned why the choices had been made to “stay behind closed doors” with these negotiations rather than being transparent. His point of reference was the Health Care fiasco of the Clinton Era when the President asked Hillary Clinton to chair a committee to overhaul the health care system.  He reminded us that those dialogues took place behind closed doors and the suspicions they aroused were fatal to the acceptance of reports of their findings.

This dialogue this morning reminded me that we too often assume that events in Washington are taking place on an even playing field. Given the best of circumstances, such transparency as that being requested would be a welcome factor.   But when you have more than four score of Tea Party Republicans who have vowed to shoot anything out of the water that doesn’t pass their preliminary litmus test for radical conservatism, the hope for transparency in negotiations evaporates.

The skill of negotiating is more than people from opposite sides  ranting emotionally.  It calls for patience, clarity, magnanimity, and concession.   None of those are words I would ascribe to what I have seen of the Tea Party bunch.   Skilled negotiators have worked miracles over the years.   Hostages have been released unharmed.  Nations have backed off from the brink of war.  Economic disasters have been avoided.  Potential suicides have been talked down.  National borders have been agreed upon.  It is a highly sophisticated form of human interaction and it requires diplomacy beyond the norm.

If, every time the negotiators came to a decision, an announcement was made only to be exploded, derided, and ridiculed the negotiations would go nowhere.  The experience we have had with the Tea Party bunch leads me to believe that it would be no different with the “Gang of Six” negotiations, or the presidential conversations with leaders of his own and the opposing party.

The cry that “The American People” need to know what is going on behind close doors seems to be based upon some form of self-declared entitlement.   It probably springs from our obsession with Social Media techniques that let me know every time a baby burps or a rock star picks his nose.  The American obsession with late-breaking news is polluting the journalism industry and making us into a nation of people dependent upon constant stimulation.  In any other segment of society that would be called dependency.

I suspect it is part of the motivation of the Tea Party movement, which thrives upon sound bytes and video clips.  Incomplete news reports, which can be dangerous, have fed the vocal derision of honorable people.  The more one can embarrass a “big” person, the greater the reward.

Transparency struggles in such a climate.    It does us no good to reminisce about “the good old days” when opponents went to lunch with each other and became godparents for each others’ children.  I suspect those days are lost.   But it is going to be necessary for us to rediscover a meaning for civility and respect in a climate that gravitates against such things.  New rules for transparency will have to be developed.

Unfortunately, that can’t happen before the debt ceiling deadline of Tuesday.

Photo Credit: dtc

*a redundant phrase

I read an article by Anthony Balderama recently about authors Kevin and Shawn Coyne in which they challenged one of my basic, fundamental beliefs, the idea that “there is no such thing as a bad idea.” How many hundreds of times since I was a child have I heard a teacher or other mentor make just the opposite claim?  I, myself, have encouraged creative thinking by assuring participants in a conference that they should never hold back on a question.  After all, “there is no such thing as a bad idea.”

The Coyne brothers, however, see it differently.  In their recent book, Brainsteering: A Better Approach to Brealthrough Ideas, the management-inspiring brothers say this:

The fact is, there are lots of bad ideas — including any idea that doesn’t acknowledge the legitimate constraints you face (whether they involve time, money, organizational assets and skills, or anything else) — and you shouldn’t waste your time on them,” the Coynes say. In other words, the iPod is great idea, but if you have no technology skills and no access to anyone who does, then it doesn’t do you much good.

The point they make is that calling forth a plethora of ideas  (some productive, some distracting) serves only to slow down the process of finding good solutions and pollutes the field with ideas that can actually be detrimental to the process.   If, however, the team is given a specific goal and asked to focus on that goal, the ideas forthcoming will be more likely to have legs under them.

What is being challenged is the idea of “thinking outside the box.”  Whereas most of us have been encouraged to let our minds drift, regardless of where they go, the Coynes say that the “outside the box” exercises distract us and waste good thinking energy which, if channeled by a specific question or challenge, has a greater chance of getting us someplace.

I’m impressed with the Coyne concepts, but I’m not ready to give up on the idea that a “thinking outside the box” exercise frequently leads to an idea that would never have come forth if the team was restricted to a specific line of thought.  We never know what is lurking in our minds which seems like irrelevant or extraneous thought.   A friend who was the President of a division of one of the largest advertising companies in the world described to me that process of creating advertising for one of the “big three” auto manufacturers.  The freedom to let one’s mind drift led to wild concepts and visual images  which frequently ended up as very productive advertising models.  I have to admit that his meetings sounded more like a pot-smoking exercise in free thinking than a business meeting, but the products and their success spoke for themselves.

I’m not ready to dismiss the idea of brainsteering, however. I believe the Coynes have a legitimate point, especially when there is a sense of urgency or cost effectiveness involved.  Wandering all over Robin Hood’s barn with far-flung ideas may not always turn out to be a very productive exercise.  The idea of focusing the thinking (which still has a freedom to it) around a specific question makes a lot of sense.  How many meetings have you sat through where the participants could not focus, and several hours were wasted responding to questions or issues that were not relevant?

I think I’ll buy their book.  I sense it’s not a bad idea.

Graphic Credit: www.cyber-Kap.blogspot.com