~synthesis~

americanada

My good friend Brian Singh from Calgary published this in the Globe & Mail today. It is an excellent analysis of the Conservative Party’s strategy for ascendancy, and ongoing domination of the Canadian government.

There are clear parallels between Ottawa and Washington DC. And there are lessons to be learned about effective, sustainable governance.

Canada: Conservatives rise in the wake of (despite?) years of a strong and successful Liberal leadership, which presided over budget surplus (yes, surplus!) after surplus.

US: Republicans come to the fore in 2002/3 via Karl Rove despite the economic strength of the Clinton/Democratic leadership.

How did they do it? Brian nails it with his 8 Lessons. And with his indulgence, let me add my two cents.

By definition, underdogs are smaller, hungrier, and have less to lose. They have two paths to follow - leaderless/vacuous self-pitying petulance (the road to under-underdoggery), or disciplined, pertinent leadership. Examples of the former include the anti-gun and anti-immigration advocates, whose arguments are specious and whose policies will never improve things.

Then look at how Karl Rove transformed the Republican party into a consistent, relevant, and singular force of political might. He corralled people; narrowed their focus to a handful of clear, simple issues; and created a new truth (Republicans = economic strength and success). All of which led to a close race in Bush vs. Gore, and then a decisive win vs. Kerry.

The Democrats (and the Liberals in Canada) lost their mojo because their sustained success created too many wanna-be kings, excessive infighting, and through this, a fractionalized party whose leaders spent more time trying to one-up each other vs focusing on their Conservative opponents. (Similar also to the last Republican Primary.)

Like the US Democrats, the Canadian Liberals (with the right leadership) were able to coalesce and form effective and long-lived governments. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama, Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are examples of leaders who were able to achieve critical mass.

Will Justin Trudeau be able to do the same for the Liberals in the years to come? Will Hillary Clinton (?) be able to keep Democrats in the White House in 2016?

I defer to Brian on the first question.

South of the 49th Parallel, the Republican party is in the midst of a 3-way tug-of-war. Traditional fiscal conservatives vs. the religious right vs. the Tea Party. Each seems to “control” about 1/3 of the Republican representatives in Congress, and certainly each believes they are the only hope for victory in 2016.

Try as they might, they’ve not been able to win (or even unite) under a traditional fiscal conservative (McCain, Romney), in fact, they’ve been spanked both times, and from what we’ve seen of the Primary candidate pool, they may be in line for another spanking.

Successful gerrymandering combined with trumped up voter fraud-prevention tactics will almost certainly assure them of a majority in the House, but to what end? There is no emergent House Republican winner or leader; worse, they can only agree on one thing - voting against Democrats. Other than that, they are consistently an inconsequential, and sometimes destructive (last debt ceiling fiasco) Congress.

Like the Liberals in Canada, the Republicans are mired in pettiness and infighting - they lack a consistent vision and are unable to believe in their leadership. Unlike the Liberals (who are now the third party behind the NDP), their success in Congress means they don’t believe they are underdogs. If it ain’t broke...

The Democrats on the other hand have an anti-1% and anti-gun fetish that will doom them. Say what you will about the 1%, they got there by fulfilling the American Dream. Persistently vilifying them is not only moronic, it is destructive and hypocritical. It is equally naive to believe that laws will stop people bent on committing unlawful acts. There are over 300 million privately owned guns in America - background checks are not going to stop gun violence.

Bizarrely, I would advise either party to listen to Sarah Palin’s speech at the CPAC 2013. She crystalized the issues beautifully in terms of what it will take to win votes. Avoid politics, stop blaming other people, just focus on the wellbeing of the lower and middle classes - fight for them, and not against your opponent or within your party.

The Republicans should get over ObamaCare, recognize that eliminating entitlements is not realistic, and see that shrinking government creates unemployment, which further drags the economy. That is not to say we should inflate government, but rather to say that we should spend more efficiently. If they were really smart (and hungry), they’d stop the “we oppose everything Democrats support” line, and become reasoned, compromising people intent on public service. Imagine the change in how independents and liberals would regard them.

The Dems should get over hating rich people, realize that entitlements are not sacrosanct, and stop being so sanctimonious. If they were really smart, they would focus solely on, and trumpet job growth and economic growth. This would especially be effective if Hilary Clinton were to win the primary, as she could “take credit” for the economic positives in both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama’s presidencies.

In the end, I feel more optimistic about Canadian politics and government, where with the right leader, a Party can make a difference. Here in America, it seems that we are doomed to a House, Senate, and White House that will prioritize one-upmanship over governing.

To paraphrase Brian's 8th lesson - winning is easier if your opponent is dumber than you.

the pope loop

My list of questions if the Papacy was a job won via interview, and if I were on that interview loop.

1. Name the one thing you believe every Catholic must be/have - the one thing without which you would not consider that person a Catholic.
2. Name the one thing that if a person was or believed it, you would consider them a non-Catholic.
3. Beyond the "typical" officiating work of a Cardinal, what ONE thing would you (as Pope) define as your priority for the next three years?
4. As Pope, will you focus more on regions where Catholicism is on the rise or in decline?
5. If you had to strengthen the Church's relationship (alliance) with another mainstream religion, which one would you select? What would your goal be in doing this?
6. Are there any aspects of the Church's teachings (traditions/rules vs. religious tenets) that you believe should be reevaluated based on changing times (between now and when these traditions/rules were established)?

My ideal candidate's answers (bearing in mind I have no affiliation with the Catholic Church, nor am I religious):

1. A practitioner of the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, combined with love thy neighbor, which I believe are two sides of the same coin.
2. That harming another or allowing them to come to harm is acceptable.
3. To turn our religion from a series of "No's" to a conversation about "Yes" - assuming the worst and a model that scares people into behaving seems antithetical.
4. I will focus on people in need no matter their faith or location.
5. I would pick Islam. The loudest fringe always subsumes people of moderate voices; this is and has been true in our faith, and it is so in others. It saddens me when the fringe uses faith to advance a self-serving agenda, and it scares me when they advance a violent agenda. I would seek to build a bridge between moderate Catholics and Muslims in the hope that our combined strength and tolerance will help the fringe find its way to the middle.
6. I believe Catholicism is centered on the notions of faith, love, tolerance, and service. Anything beyond this is a matter of time and place. I would look at homosexuality, contraception, celibacy, and the role of women in the Church as subject to reinterpretation.
   • I would rather people are guided by their faith in God and love for each other when it comes to which gender they should love and marry; our teachings should focus on faith and love, and we must trust in God that people will choose wisely, and then accept the guidance God gives them.
   • I would urge adults to view parenting as their most important role; one that must be entered into intentionally, and when ready. There is nothing worse in the world than a child suffering needlessly because their parents are not able to care for them; I would support the use of contraception to prevent this form of child abuse.
   • Rather than being celibate, I would like to see the leaders of our Church be exemplars of healthy, successful marriages and parenting.
   • I would hope that one day soon the person answering these questions is a woman - there is no reason why it should not be so.

who is more afraid?

...the student, the parent, the teacher, the principal, the university admissions officer, the employer?

I guarantee that of these six, the one least afraid of anything is the student.

As we mature, two things become very important - change and control. We hate the first and love the second. This is true as individuals and as organizations. Take our education system - it began with apprenticeship, and the master’s need to create a successor. This is the most successful teaching model ever.

Over time, education has “evolved” into a hideous creature that cares not at all about children, creating successors, or even the idea of learning. Instead, it is about building a standardized machine whose mission is put bums in seats, and impose tests on those poor bums that measure nothing meaningful.

The public education system in America is the last place you should look to find evolved thinking or a genuine commitment to give our children the means to be successful as adults. Of course there are (rare) exceptions, some teachers and school leaders do try to give their kids more than our feckless system prescribes; they are heroes, and they are a small minority.

My very good friend Larry Rosenstock (CEO of High Tech High) and Rob Riordan (President of the HTH Graduate School of Education) just published a brilliant and inspired essay entitled Changing the Subject. It, much more eloquently than I could ever, sets out a vision for what learning should be, and what a school ought to look like if we adults genuinely cared about our children.

Less than a quarter of a millennium old, America has accomplished amazing things. But much of the credit for this country’s greatness comes from those of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The late 20th and early 21st century is a nadir - from the Baby Boomers to the Gen Xs, and now the Gen Ys, we have vilified change and embraced control. We have normalized and standardized and homogenized our way into insipidity.

There is a way to climb back up the mountain. Larry and Rob’s essay shows us how to build what our children deserve. It is time.

If we can learn from our children how not to fear fear, we just might have a hope of turning them into the adults we wish we could be.

the NRA is right - it’s not about the guns...

...it’s about the gun owners. According to Wayne LaPierre (head of NRA), “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” It’s hard to argue with that, just as it is hard to implement an “only good guys may have guns” policy.

Proponents of gun control will say that access to certain (or all) weapons + ineffective buyer "qualification" are the issues. This might be true, but so what - it will not prevent gun violence in a country where there are ~9 times more gun dealers than McDonalds restaurants; where there are already ~300 million guns in circulation, and where 5-10 million guns are purchased every year.

The American Bill of Rights protects an individual’s right to bear arms; changing that is nigh impossible, so the real question is not how to prevent gun ownership; it is akin to what LaPierre said, how do we prevent bad guys from wanting to use guns.

I think the anti-gun lobbies/organizations are wasting their time and money. They ironically draw strength and impetus from killing sprees (especially where young people are involved), and sure they create a feverish signing of anti-gun petitions and calls to Congresspeople, but in the end, the outcome is status quo. And then comes another spree, the process begins anew, with the same outcome - status quo.

Back to LaPierre, who are these “bad” guys? The killers are almost always male, they often are killed or kill themselves in the process (society gets no justice), and they are deranged.

So most gun violence is committed by men; these men buy/get guns as an extension of their penis/machismo. They use guns to assert their maleness, and as a conduit for their anger and bravado. Their role models are gun-toting archetypes, like John Wayne/Rambo/etc., revolutionaries, survivalists, gangstas, soldiers, other spree-killers, etc.

They crave the luster of strength, confidence, coolness, assertiveness, heroism, etc. that comes from wielding a gun. Guns are perceived to be a supremely manly accessory.

Rather than relentlessly pursing the pointless cause of legislative relief, let us instead change the perception of guns. Let us reposition gun ownership and gun usage as something other than an expression of machismo.

It would take time; it would take persistence; it would certainly take creativity; but compare that to the multi-decade failure of every anti-gun organization to meet its goal. It is time to try a new approach.

Positioning is a powerful, powerful tool. It allows a thing to be conceptualized or re-conceptualized in a way that will endure. I wrote this a couple of years ago - if you have a moment, read it, and more importantly, watch the two videos. They are outstanding, and they are exactly what is needed to redefine the lure of “bearing arms.”

How would “men” feel if guns were associated with tampons, or as an indicator of erectile dysfunction? Will this happen overnight? No. But look at how we view cigarette smoking today vs. during the era of Mad Men.

If America’s love of guns is to be diminished, it will NOT be with laws; it will be because we redefined the notion of gun ownership to be insipid.

stimulating peace

America is a generous country - from 1946-2010 (in 2010 $), she has given just under $2.1 trillion in foreign program and military aid. Impressive, and well... it makes me proud to be an American.

Over this period, the #1 beneficiary of American largesse is Israel ($185 billion or 8.9% of all aid).

Israel receives American aid with good reason - they are the longest-standing democracy in the Middle East, and they have the most effective lobbyists in the world. The value proposition is the preservation of Israel in the face of their anti-Zionist neighbors.

I’ve spent time in the Middle East, and except for the (very) rare zealot, the people I’ve met care little about the Jew/Muslim issue - their focus is their family (health, economic, social wellbeing). This is because the people I knew were gainfully employed and had something besides zealotry to live for.

Are there freaks on both sides that are filled with hate? Of course, but not as many as we might think. Do some of them wish to create armies with which to wreak violence? Yes - on both sides. The media’s relentless and gawky focus on the ugly side of humanity is why we think they represent the majority.

America also has it’s share of hate-filled people, but it’s not so easy to achieve critical mass here - most Americans have too many other things to live for/distract them. Even the Occupy Wall Street movement petered out because people soon had better things to do than sit in tents and be irritating.

In 2010, America gave Israel $2.8 billion ($386/person or 1.3% of Israeli GDP) in aid. The West Bank/Gaza received $693 million - $4/person or 10% of GDP. Israel’s GDP/capita is ten times that of their poorer neighbors; the average income in Israel is just over $30,000/year vs. just under $2,000/year in the West Bank.

Is it any wonder that it’s easy to recruit Arab “soldiers” - they literally have nothing better to do, and very sadly, nothing to live for but dying. Having just $5.50/day will lead anyone, however civilized or educated, to desperate acts. It’s not hard to see how a Palestinian parent might join a terrorist organization, or “volunteer” a child to the “cause” - it’s the only available way to feed their family - they’re that poor.

Has the $185 billion in American aid done anything to create a (self-) sustainably peaceful Israel? No. Should we stop? No. Should we continue doing the same thing? No. So...?

Our goal is the long-term preservation of Israel; we should then stop funding their ability to kill Arabs (majority of US aid to Israel is military), and instead help Israel by enabling the Arabs' economic viability.

Employment is the offspring of the marriage of demand with capacity. If America were to proffer large tranches of demand (we will buy $X millions of products Y1, Y2, etc. for the next Z years) to the Palestinians, the result would be widespread employment in Gaza and the West Bank. We would phase out our investment as they became self-sustaining.

This would profoundly change the dynamic in the region. If you had two ways to feed your family - send your daughter to her suicide-bomber-death, or work at a job, which would you choose?

If the majority of Palestinian families are earning enough money to cover shelter, food, education, healthcare, etc., and if they are then earning just a bit more so as to buy that new iPad Mini or a TV, I guarantee you they will not reelect Hamas. They will choose a commerce-minded government bent on improving their economic situation even more. Israel won’t matter except as a trading partner; they’ll be too busy playing Angry Birds, watching Desperate Housewives, and thinking about what they’ll buy with their next bonus.

Now think of how much more stable and peaceful Israel would be. The best way to end war is to give people something more valuable to live for.

America should never weaponize other countries. Peace through prosperity should be our foreign policy motto.

bloodied introspection

Why work hard to be "united" when "divided" is so much easier?

I wrote several months ago that the personal nature of the rift between the Middle/Southern (MS) states vs. the Northeast/Northwest (NEW) states has put America on a path to divorce - the differences are simply irreconcilable. That was in the midst of the Republican Primary. Have things changed since? Did the election resolve or reconcile anything?

No. America has never faced its mortality, and thus never grasped or faced the question of what it really stands for, what is at the core of being American. Without this, there is nothing with which to trump the red/blue emotional antipathy I referenced in that blog, and without which, I don't think America can be one nation.

I joined Microsoft in 1994, during its "cool" zenith (Windows 95): success was everywhere, the stock was rising, the world was happy. Then came the DOJ. Being a convicted monopolist put the company back on its heels. We became timid, cautious, and for a long while, without mojo. They are a different company today, Windows and Office are still the flagships, but now Servers, Xboxes, etc. are legitimate multi-$billion businesses unto themselves. Tablets and Phones are new, but the company is patient and tenacious and will keep trying.

Their size and diversity has put them in a position of potential success in a number of high-margin businesses. Each of their battles (DOJ, browser wars, open source, search, Apple, etc.) caused them to question who they are, what they are, and either re-up or abandon the idea that Microsoft could exist and thrive as a "new" entrant in non-PC markets. They have faced breakups, severe loss of cool, being viewed as insignificant, and yet, the profits keep coming in.

Look also at Germany through the 20^th century -- decimated in WWI, they rose from the ashes, became an industrial powerhouse in the hands of one man. Vanquished again in WWII, they were split in half and became servants of their Eastern and Western masters. Two generations on, Germany reasserted her independence and united as one nation with a clear identity that is informed by its past, understands its potential, and has the maturity to be a world leader. It is now a global powerhouse whose citizens enjoy a comprehensive social and economic foundation.

While the WWII/Holocaust generation is waning, that Germany's behavior still colors their thought process. Rather than diminish, it has strengthened their resolve to strive for success, but with a conscience. Over the years, they looked inward, explored what it really meant to be German, evaluated their past, understood the essence of who they were, and then emerged as the culture they are.

The desire to remain whole; diversify with a long-term view; and embrace conflict and introspection does pay off. If I were picking a long-term tech investment, or betting on a country's preeminence over time, I'd buy Microsoft or pick Germany -- they've been bloodied, faced their own good and bad, and shown that they can get back on the horse, and progress.

America is divisive and divided today because she has never been bloodied; the act of being American has never been questioned. 9-11 was a blip - there is no lasting effect. Support for the military and first responders at sporting events while touching, has not prevented budget cuts and reductions in force. America and Americans have never been sufficiently challenged or provoked to true introspection. The country remains successful, but also petulant, naive, and immature on the world stage.

Today Democrats hate Republicans for their passion for god and guns, and disdain for science. Republicans hate Democrats for their passion for socialistic services, secularism, and belief in science. If America is to be a beacon for pluralism and freedom, then it must experience the worst that can be thrown its way, and yet stay true to these ideals.

This isn't about any one issue, it is about never having questioned your fundamental identity, never having faced legitimate threats to your existence, and never having risen from such challenges as one.

America was most "American" when it faced the very real threat of identity and existence from the Soviet Union and Communism. It gave the country a higher purpose than childish partisan bickering - and while that threat was credible and imminent, the country was more together than apart. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the bickering returned, and as the threat to America diminished, so did our desire to put America above partisanship. It seems the experience of falling and then rising from the ashes is required to created sustained oneness.

Visit Fukushima, Japan, and then New Orleans, Louisiana and ask yourself which cataclysm happened seven years ago, and which one happened two years ago? Ask yourself which country is more persistent, more resilient, and more unified?

Despite their absurd and moronic efforts, our politicians can not make China another USSR - our economic interdependence and China's passion for capitalism are just two reasons.

Is it possible to become one without having to rise from the ashes? Can American ingenuity and "exceptionalism" extend this far? If the post election machinations of the White House and Congress are any indication, then no.

If America is to live, it must first die a little bit.

de facto fallacies

What happens when an organization makes a “big” decision? It becomes truth. The level of cognitive dissonance is such that facts, dissenting views, and even wise and pertinent questions are disdained - the “word” has been given.

A few years ago, the Canadian government decided to upgrade their fleet of fighter planes. After a protracted “analysis” they decided to purchase 65 Lockheed F-35s for $9 billion. (They’d already spent $160m by mid-2010 + another $350m in related contracts, despite the fact that the first plane won’t see Canadian shores until 2016.)

During the process, assumptions made early on were so endemic that they became fact. This phenomenon persisted over months. In the end, the project was a house of cards vs. a rigorous, fact/truth-based analysis.

But this wasn’t the only problem. Price creep also set in. When you or I go out to buy a car, we start with a budget - say $30k. With initial good intentions, I look slightly below the limit ($25-27k), and then “out of curiosity,” check out the $30/32k cars. “Wow - this is so much better!”

Now what were luxury features become necessities, “No way I can live without heated seats.” Pretty soon, I’m looking at $35k cars, thinking, “It’s only another $5k - I can swing it.” I walk out happy, having rationalized “only” spending 17% more. Kicker #2 - my next car’s baseline is at least $35k probably closer to $40k (massaging and cooled seats!) -- price creep.

The bigger the organization, the more faux truths and creeping price risk $billions being wasted. In the case of the F-35 fighter, 2012 the “revised estimate” is $25 billion!! Ouch!

It gets worse - the original motivation is also not questioned: “Of course we need new fighter planes - we have no choice!!” Really? What would happen if we retired the current fleet and didn’t replace it? Yes - commitments and capabilities would change, and people would lose their jobs.

But we’d also save $billions - what could we do with that money to employ more people, find new ways to solve the old problem, and maybe even give back a few $billion to the national coffers.

Will this happen? No. The assumption that Canada needs fighters is based on century-old thinking (Canadian planes were part of the RAF in WWI). They’ll never question it – stupid, stupid, stupid.

Government (and most large organization) departments assume power based on the size of their budgets vs. their service to the mission. Budgets are assigned every year on a LOBA (lower of budget or actual spending) basis, which means you have to spend everything you were given, and then figure out ways to get more, ‘cause that demonstrates your relevance. There is zero incentive to do more with less - it’s actually discouraged because this kind of efficiency lowers the department’s “standing.”

This article in the Atlantic is a great example of entrenched thinking at GE vis-à-vis outsourcing. Look also at Boeing’s 787 project and how much difficulty, patching, and mitigation they’ve had to do to overcome what was initially a cute idea (multi-site sourcing), but quickly became the de facto and not-to-be-questioned strategy. Even a nimble company like Apple is going to inshore some of its product assembly.

No assumption deserves absolute faith forever.

Always, always question your assumptions. More than 50% of American marriages end in divorce because the preconceptions were proven wrong. We no longer consider marriage a de facto state; permanence, multi-race, age disparity, and gender are now part of the new normal of marriage. In the same way, there should also be a new normal for divorce - why does acrimony have to persist?

There is a Mexican proposal to redefine marriage as a 2-year contract that must actively be renewed - I think this is a brilliant approach to ensuring that the parties involved continually question their assumptions and actively choose to “re-up” vs. passively enduring a bad situation until things become so bad that hate and anger and vindictiveness ensue.

Entrenchment leads to bad decision-making, costly repercussions, and sadness.

less walls

An act of God (Sandy) resulted in $billions committed to reparations, many benefit concerts by famous entertainers, and a ton of political action.

What, I wonder will an act of man (Sandy Hook) provoke?

It is not realistic to think that even the slaying of 20 children will create a sufficient change of heart to provoke new laws. So I don't expect this country will suddenly become anti-gun, nor do I expect that America will legislatively and enforcement-wise shift from being the most weaponized country on the planet.

What then is possible? What then is realistic? Many are comparing the regulation of cars and driving to guns, but this doesn’t apply either. There is simply no practical way to achieve this.

A knee-jerk reaction will be a demand for guards, stronger doors, and metal detectors in schools so that students are protected. But this is also wrong - I’m reminded of something I wrote a few years ago:

South Africa is one of my favorite places. In Johannesburg, some people live in beautiful homes but you wouldn't know it, because they are surrounded by huge, thick concrete walls with broken glass on the top and steel gates. Safety is in being inside your jail-like walls. I've also been to Soweto a few times, and there, if there is one at all, the fences are low (3 feet) and decorative. I asked why they didn't use tall concrete walls and was told, "we feel safer when our neighbors can see into our homes and come to our aid if we're in trouble. The bigger the walls, the less safe we feel."

This speaks volumes, doesn't it?

In Soweto, they gain support and security from each other. Together they are stronger than as individuals.

In America, every time people do bad things, we act passionately and aggressively to build bigger walls - from tough on crime to anti-terrorism to anti-lunacy. The reward for every bad act is a curbing of everyone’s freedom. America imprisons a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world - by far. I imagine we also spend more on law enforcement than anyone else.

I believe all of this “tough on X” bluster actually creates more criminals. That the extolling of bad acts in the media actually spawns more bad actors.

Instead of improving things, building bigger walls has only made us more vulnerable.

I believe our friends in Soweto have it right - in the face of bad behavior, our reaction must be to demand more freedom, less or no walls, and more opportunities to be there for our neighbors; to be able to see that there is trouble and come to their aid. There is no shortage of heroes in our world let us give them a chance to save us.

As ever, I am inspired by Aaron Sorkin and Josiah Bartlett. These 3 minutes and 37 seconds are worth another look.

fatal dependencies = political failure

Marketing exists to grease the skids between the product and the buyer. There are many ways to do this, but in the end it boils down to creating actionable preference.

Because marketing is so visible and so expensive, it is easy to assume a good marketing campaign trumps the product, business process, or customer. We often see senior business executives more enamored with marketing at the expense of the other two. This generally leads to bad outcomes - in business or in politics.

Now politics is perception so marketing (and polling) do play a role. But relying on them exclusively can bite you, as Hilary Clinton learned during the 2007 primaries, despite being a pretty good product.

What can also bite you is believing that midterm (local) wins can translate to national elections. In 2010, the Republicans won simply by opposing President Obama. Their message, “We’ll stop ObamaCare, kill terrorists, hate anything a Democrat does, and lower taxes.”

The product/candidate didn’t matter as long as it could parrot the party line. Win first and worry about governing later, if ever.

Just months later, the Republican Primary candidates went back to the well: vilify the incumbent and make impossible, sound-byte promises that resonate with the base. All talk (spin) no substance (product).

It is hardly surprising that the shallowest candidate won.

But the Presidency is a different ballgame. The electoral college and broad-based support matter more than any one Congressional district. The dynamic is more complex, the scrutiny is greater, and your opponent is no longer a less competent and (even) more buffoon-like version of you.

Now the product matters as much if not more than the marketing. It must meet the needs of a much broader set of customers, it must be real, and it must convince skeptics. A shallow (and hollow) message won’t cut it.

Governor Romney lost because he assumed marketing would take him all the way. He let winning the primary go to his head, did not realize how different the new game was, and how much harder it is to convince undecided voters. He also assumed he and his plans were now fully-vetted and approved by all voters - no analysis or clarity required. “I’m bona fide!” And finally, he believed that the people attending his rallies represented all voters, that what swayed them would sway every voter he needed for the win, and that their fervency reflected their intent to turn out and vote.

The reason your base is called your base is because they love you and your platform, and hate your opponent. The relationship is irrational. Independents are less driven by emotion - they’re trying to make a reasoned choice based on factors matter to them.

The Romney camp didn’t grasp this - they reckoned that mere promises were enough to carry the day. They avoided specifics because they didn’t want to open cans of worms. Non-fanatics saw through it; they wanted:

• Specific, independently verified plans showing how 12 million jobs would be created.
• Proof that you can lower taxes, grow defense, not raise more money, lower the deficit, and allow everyone to take home more money.
• To know why he hated Latinos (and women?) so much.
• To learn Romney’s strategy to work with the Tea Party (something the Republican Speaker failed at), and a Democrat Senate.

These questions (and others) required more than vapid sound bytes, more than “trust me because I saved the Olympics.” The marketing wasn’t holding water.

But this wasn’t their only problem - remember the three elements in the equation - product, marketing, customer. They forgot that the only thing that counts in the end is a person showing up and voting (customer). They assumed that their voters would turn out, but did nothing to assure it. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

The President, invested early and extensively at the local level. He was able to overcome a number of setbacks (negative ad campaign, poor debate performance, weak economy, etc.) with his “ground game.” He avoided outlandish promises (12 million new jobs, lowering the deficit without raising taxes, etc.), and his local machine created relationships and helped people come out and vote.

In the wake of the election, the "evolved" Republican strategy for 2016 appears to be:

1. Romney was too liberal - the next candidate needs to have unimpeachable conservative credentials (small government, lower taxes, bigger defense, loves God).
2. Win the Latino and female vote - support amnesty and trumpet Marco Rubio and Susana Martinez, to demonstrate Latino/female kinship.
3. Continue to deny inconvenient facts - the 2010 Republican House was the least functional ever; climate change does exist; lower taxes don’t magically create jobs; there is no fraud - voter id laws are designed to prevent Dems from voting; gay people families are just as normal as straight families. “Hey - let’s not change things too much, after all - there’s nothing wrong with the real us, the problem was Romney.”

#1 & #3 make sense. Republicans have a better chance of wining when they stay true to their roots. There is goodness in authenticity, misguided though it may be.

#2 - well... Latinos and women (and any other “target audience”) are not idiots - they can see through the lip service. If the Republicans truly wish to win over these constituencies, they will have to get over the idea that a marketing/spin campaign is all that’s needed.

Exit polls from the election showed that Americans are:

• 25% Liberal ~ 40% Moderate ~ 35% Conservative
• 39% Democrat ~ 33% Republican ~ 28% Independent

Neither party wins without the moderate/independent vote. This vote is by definition not emotionally attached to a party, and thus makes decisions by observing behavior, reviewing facts, and evaluating policies and plans.

Marketing alone can not convince them. The winning candidate will understand that you also have to show the substance of your product, and you have to directly and genuinely engage your customer.

I am a moderate/independent who will never affiliate with a party. I wanted to vote for Romney - on paper, he seemed the better candidate. BUT in reality, he lacked substance, disdained the voters, and exhibited a shocking lack of integrity. I changed my mind because all I saw was an empty suit whose only interest was self-interest.

To win, Republicans have to get past their Eric Cantorness and focus on the electorate - spin won't win.

debating integrity

In a few short hours, one wasteful, unscrupulous, liar will be chosen to serve as the most powerful man on earth.

This man will have won this right by wasting more than a billion dollars advertising to witless voters; by further polarizing the people against his opponent/party; and by lying.

The level of causticity that permeates politics in America has dangerous side effects:

1. Bifurcation of the populace. Most Americans are so indoctrinated (brain washed?) by this that they not only have an abject hatred for whichever party they oppose, but they also hate their fellow Americans that support that party!
2. America the global laughing stock. As a recent American, and perhaps still an outsider, I can say with certainty that the best impression American politics leaves in foreigners’ minds is bemusement; the typical impression is disdain.
3. Governing is impossible. The Tea Party REQUIRES their candidates to pledge to never compromise with either the Democrats or “unenlightened” Republicans!?!?

We can’t let this continue.

I propose that six days before the next presidential election, the candidates are required to participate in the following debate:

Details:

1. Each party will select three ads authored by their opponent’s campaign, and one ad authored by an outside agency (PAC or Super PAC) and submit them to the moderator six (6) hours prior to the debate.
2. Logistics:
   1. Duration: 90 minutes
   2. Setting: opponents sit across from each other at a table arranged so that one camera can show both faces.
   3. Audience: 300 people - evenly split Republican, Democrat, Independent; each will have a device with which to choose between “Righteous” and “Sleaze Bag.”
   4. Structure: 
      1. eight 10-minute segments for the eight ads.
      2. closing segment with one minute each to "explain."
      3. remaining minutes used at the discretion of the moderator.
3. Approach - a coin toss will choose the first speaker.
   1. Candidate A is given a transcript of one of his ads and required to read it aloud while facing his opponent (one minute).
   2. Candidate A will then have one minute to explain the ad.
   3. Candidate B will have two minutes to rebut.
   4. The Candidates will argue for six minutes (fact-checked by the moderator).
   5. The audience will assess (see 2.3 above) Candidate A, with the results appearing in real time for all to see (including the Candidates).
   6. Repeat for each ad. The Moderator will decide the order of the ads.
   7. Close - each candidate will have one minute to explain themselves.
4. Optionally:
   1. Viewers at home can also add their votes via text, mobile app, or the internet.
   2. Candidates’ seats are metal with electrodes through which voltage corresponding to the level of “Sleaze Bag” as judged by the audience is applied after each segment.

Some might think 4.2 is going too far...

Because the opposing Candidate is selecting the ads, they will be very prepared for the rebuttal. While the choice of ads will be a surprise, the Candidate should know their own ads, after all they approved them. The moderator will have fact-checked the ads and confront any lies.

Impact:

1. The voters will be able to judge the Candidates’ integrity.
2. The Candidates will publicly confront and defend their own lies as, as well as one "independent” lie.

There is no way (given today’s laws) to prevent political “free” speech. But by confronting their own ads in this way, we at least turn them from three-year-olds to twelve-year-olds.