Assumption of Power

In the final days leading up to the November election, there appears to be a lot of assuming going on. The Republican Party is assuming that they will take over the majority in one, if not both Houses of Congress, the Democratic Party assumes that in spite of the low opinion that voters appear to have of the way they have been running things (especially in the last two years when they had the majority in both Houses of Congress and the resident in the White House) that they will retain that majority, and every political pundit in the US assumes that they know what's going on in the heads of the voters. 


Though we all know the saying about what happens when you assume, this prevents no one from doing so. The most heinous assumptions however, seem to be those made by the candidates themselves. Many running for political office this year assume that they are the best choice because of their paternity. Apparently the assumption here is that there is some genetic component to holding office, and that being born into what must be considered little more than a ruling elite is qualification enough for it. 


One can assume little else from behavior that takes great pains to insure that these names are prominently and conspicuously displayed. Married daughters even often hyphenate their names in order to insure paternal recognition or use 'professional' political names which drop that of their spouse entirely. Curiously, the reverse is equally true, and some seem to ignore their own paternity to claim that of their male spouse, apparently believing that political acumen is something that can be passed on during prolonged conjugal exposure. 


I will not give credence to such assumptive efforts by listing names that we are all too familiar to those in NW Ohio, Missouri, and Kansas. I will point out however that my own family in fact holds a distant relationship to the Adams family (John and John Quincy, not the rather creepy family made famous in the television show); but though one was a Founding Father and both were former presidents, I can certainly make no claim to political primogeniture as a consequence of this remote relationship. 


Incumbents are another of these assumptive class of politicians. In this case, it appears that possession may indeed be nine-tenths of the law, and that there is an unwritten right of assumption stating that holding an elective office constitutes the only necessary qualification for retaining it. This may be understandable in light of the confusion these days over what constitutes 'rights' in this country; especially the assumption that rights have to do with outcomes rather than opportunities. 


It is curious however, that while such experience appears to often be the exclusive claim to titular possession, any questioning of what has been done for (or to) constituents during this ownership is assumed to be off limits or in poor taste. It often seem in fact, as though there is an assumption that holding political office is much like a skilled trade. One need only serve the appropriate apprenticeship period and qualify for journeyman status. What follows is an assumption that this person will then hold office until a retirement at a time and age of their choosing. 


For myself, I am amazed and amused by such a concept and cannot help but wonder how many of these journeymen would fare if there were an 'Angie's List' compiled on public servants. This is not to say that accidents of birth or marriage should preclude one from seeking and holding public office, only to say that these circumstances do not in and of themselves constitute qualification. 


Neither is holding an elective office long enough to achieve tenure as a professor in most universities justification for the assumption of such tenure in elected office. In fact, those who designed the system of government we live under believed just the opposite; and felt that political office was a public trust that must be earned from the voters each time that an election is held. 


And so therefore in little more than three weeks, the final judgment on all such assumptions will take place at the ballot box. No doubt far too few of us will once again exercise their franchise and their responsibility to vote, but those chosen will still assume the power of their respective elected office nonetheless. Let us hope that they show wisdom, good sense, and respect for this responsibility; and do not make the assumption that selection means that they know what's best for us.

Promises & Lies

For as long as I can remember there have been three great promises: - I promise to respect you in the morning. - I promise to love you forever. - I promise you that the check is in the mail. Likewise, there were two great lies: - It's not my fault, someone else must have done it. - I'm from the government and I'm here to help. (taken from a great Ronald Reagan quote) There is rumored to be a third lie currently in committee (sought to balance the great scales of the universe no doubt): "No dear, that outfit doesn't make you look fat." But my understanding is that the committee in charge of such things holds its meetings only infrequently, often does so in secret, and in most cases can come to no meaningful conclusion on their responsibilities (you know, like Congress). 


Which leads us to the subject at hand. For those of you who have somehow managed to keep yourself from a newspaper (an ever-increasing number, apparently), the television, or the internet (in which case you wouldn't be reading this) we have entered one of the most offensive seasons of the year. 


No, I'm talking about fall with all of its cool breezes and bright colors. Nor am I speaking of one of the various hunting seasons that many animal rights activists seem to object to (my personal favorite is tourist season, though I have failed to bag one so far this year). I'm talking instead about campaign season. Now many might find this a surprise, since these days I find myself oftentimes writing about politics and political thought (subjects that often seem incompatible). In the spirit of full disclosure in fact, I must admit that such activity does provide a target-rich environment for someone with irony and sarcasm in their toolbox and the ability to string a couple of words together within their grasp. 


The problem however is that during campaign season, the concept of thought of any kind on the part of both the electable and the electorate seems difficult to discover; as are honesty, common sense, and good taste. We not only expect, but seemingly encourage those running for elected office to abandon logic, decorum, and common decency in their single-minded pursuit of public service. We stand by idly while the candidates 'take the gloves off' and manipulate the facts in ways that even a pretzel has never been twisted in their efforts. Even when such pronouncements rise beyond the level of libel, the messages delivered by these 'servants of the people' wanna-be's rarely rises beyond the level of "half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies". (Quoted from the collected sayings of 'he who must not be named' in Toledo) 


To say that most of what many of those running for office (especially those members of the professional political class) say are deceptions actually does a disservice to the practice of what Mark Twain called telling whoppers. To say that such creative telling of the truth are little more than aspersion, calumny, invention, prevarication, evasion, distortion, subterfuge, slander (though not always in the legal sense), deceit, and backbiting is simply to use fine words (actually damn fine words, if I do say so myself) to describe an abominable and all too common practice in politics that does not deserve such treatment. 


As for promises, seldom if ever was a maiden wooed with such ardor and assurances as candidates give to the electorate during these calculated campaigns (and some would suggest that they do so with the same ultimate goal in mind). The lover might be forgiven their foibles in such amorous pursuits however, for at least in such an undertaking, polling data is not used to outline the most favorable strategy of guarantees to make to the prospective paramour.  


History is filled with the tradition of such vows, and their long use in politics down the ages are scattered lights illuminating a path that is both long and illustrious. Today's efforts often do little more in fact than remind us that human nature has changed little over the centuries, and that the promise of "bread and circuses" for the populace holds as much attraction today as it did during the Roman Empire (though it probably should be pointed out that such promises certainly contributed to this empire's fall). 


"Say anything," or so the saying goes. We are promised during these campaigns a cornucopia that includes the free lunch of health care, jobs created by the government (working for the government, apparently), and an economy that will once again become robust; if only we will put John or Jane in office. 


Once there however, far too many will take the Roman example to heart, playing the role of Nero and fiddling while Rome burns; but by then they will be safely ensconced in a well-paying system which provides numerous and generous protections for those already in power. Nor do voters seem affected by previous promises that have been made and broken, the unlikely odds of those currently being voiced being kept, or the unintended consequences probable to everyone if they were in fact to be realized. 


It appears to be sufficient to the day that the candidate 'cares' enough simply to make such promises. It likewise appears that in fact while we used to believe that "all is fair in love and war", we should be prepared in fact to add politics to the categories in which "the ends justify the means". It also seems that for at least another another five weeks, we must put up with an endless barrage of Promises and Lies from many if not most of those seeking to become public servants.

Face Time

Recent sales training that I'm doing has brought to mind many of the things that I have learned about the subject over a long career in the field (though contrary to popular belief, it is not true that I sold lumber to Noah). I was reminded that much of the sales being done these days is in fact consultive sales; which strangely enough entails not selling anything at all to a potential customer, but instead seeking to remove the impediments that keep them from making a purchase that they should. 


Even if the final result is not possible however, the relationship building process that occurs in the sales process is a valuable one which can lead to future benefits for both parties. The only way to succeed in such an effort is by getting face time with the customer. In fact, there is nothing more important to success than such face time. In this day and age and with all of the available means of communication however, this does not necessarily mean being face to face with that potential customer (though that is certainly the preferred method), but also in finding any opportunity to exchange ideas. In order for the process to take its course one must build a rapport with a customer, discover that customer's needs, and attempt to find a way to help that customer fulfill them (hopefully, but not always, with the product or service that you are getting paid to sell) by showing them the benefits that you can offer and their value to the prospective customer.  


Once upon a time, political candidates likewise understood this. They took every opportunity to get face time with their constituents. Whether it was shaking hands at a local event, giving stump speeches at 'rubber chicken dinners' (rubber chickens having less chance of passing on salmonella), or most especially at candidate debate opportunities. These latter not only provided the chance to showcase the candidates views and opinions, but did so in such a way so as to allow them to distinguish themselves from their opponents. 


It worked for John Kennedy over a more experienced Richard Nixon. It worked for Ronald Reagan over both incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Walter Mondale. It worked for Bill Clinton over the senior George Bush. In fact, study and prep for debates became one of the most important parts of running a political campaign for many years. It mostly seems however, that such is no longer the case. 


Candidates sometimes seem reticent to appear in public, lest an irreverent constituent or inconvenient question rear its ugly head. (Can you say "Joe the Plummer"?) They seem to desire to avoid anything other than carefully scripted events with restricted guest lists, lest it backfire and show up on You Tube. They certainly seek to control anything and everything said by and about them, lest a stray soundbite derail their carefully crafted campaign efforts. (Can you say, "Boo Ben Konop"?) Campaigns today seem to have become all about Facebook sites and and media buys; all carefully crafted to give out the required message of the campaigns ... but even with all of this control, they seem to get it wrong. 


When did the message stop being "I believe as you do" and start becoming "My opponent does not believe as you do"? When did it become more important for a candidate to frame their opponents message rather than their own in the first place? When was the last time that you saw a political commercial on TV that did not show the opponent of the candidate as much, if not more, than the one paying for it? How can any candidate expect to win when the only face a voter remembers is that of the opponent they paid to show them? 


Techniques have come and gone over the years and many different practices have fallen in and out of favor, but two things always seem to hold true: 
1. Mention the competition as seldom as possible (and not at all if possible) to keep from drawing attention to them. 
2. Maximize you face time with the customer. 


If politicians would like to understand why it is that they are suffering from such a general lack of popularity these days, perhaps the failure to follow these two simple rules might have something to do with it. If politicians seem somehow to fail to get their message out, in spite of all of the media available to them, perhaps it's because they have lost sight of the simplicity of these rules. 


If good people fail to get elected when they should, perhaps it is not a failure of funding (though money seems to be the greatest concern of both those running and those seeking to control elections these days), but a simple failure to maximize the available face time with their constituencies in the days running up to an election.