Unintentional Communication

This Republican primary season has become a fine example of the difficulties of directing communications to a limited audience. All of these would-be nominees try all-out to woo the likely Republican primary voters, essentially Tea Party activists. None of them seems to notice that the entire country watches newscasts, and only Fox News has any sympathy for them. This leads to fascinating spectacles again and again.

Early on, we saw Sarah Palin spouting whatever came to mind, complete with a reality TV show and a bus tour, only to realize that continuing as a celebrity is safer and pays more than actually trying to run for President. I suspect that she might have caught on that a majority of the voters do not believe she could see Russia from her front porch.  Her successors almost make her look sensible, and that is a difficult task.

Michelle Bachmann (remember her?) knew she would not have to use facts and figures to please the Tea Party. She was doing well without that, but then Newsweek put her picture on their cover looking crazy.  Really crazy. Someone claimed that "crazy" was the only kind of picture available, and she drowned in the waves of laughter. Ron Paul comes and goes in the polls. The problem with him seems to be honesty. Congressman Paul appears to be a libertarian at heart, and that works fine on issues such as smaller government and lower taxes, but he would rather not outlaw sex or attempt to imprison anybody the Tea Party disapproves of.  Governor Perry of Texas tends to talk like a drunk in a bar, which would be less of a problem if his many competitors pointed it out less often. Herman Cain knew the right words (except for that 9-9-9 thing) but quickly got a reputation for sexual harassment and at least one long-term adulterous affair. The Tea Party does not approve of sex for fun under any circumstances. Mitt Romney has somehow maintained a decent position in the polls through all of this. I suspect he depends on the non-Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, because he makes sense when he talks most of the time. Unfortunately, he has a record that would serve a Democrat well, he changes his stated positions often, and he is a Mormon. While I see Mormons as a kind of fundamentalist Christian, many in the Tea Party see them as some bizarre “other” creature, possibly out to destroy them.

So all of these people parade before the devout followers of Rush Limbaugh et al., trying to reach the Republican convention with enough delegates to grab the nomination so they can run against President Obama.  They debate again and again, looking more and more foolish. They attack each other, using old pictures, past statements, and wild accusations.

The great thing for Obama is that they also parade before the rest of the USA. Obama will not need to spend as much money as usual on making new advertising against whichever one of these people outlasts the others. He can just use video of the debates and information the Republicans have already uncovered in this primary season.

The Republicans seeking the nomination are communicating more effectively than they know. Unfortunately for them, they are telling all Americans, not just the party faithful, who they are.

Book Review: Willful Blindness

Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at Our Peril, by Margaret Heffernan; 2011, Walker & Company, New York.

According to the bio on her book jacket, Margaret Heffernan is a former producer for BBC radio and TV and has been CEO of several interactive media companies. She came across the term “willful blindness” in the transcript of the Enron trial, and it so interested her that she eventually wrote this book about it. The term “willful blindness” means “you are responsible if you could have known, and should have known, something that instead you strove not to see (p. 2).” It matters not whether this avoidance was conscious or not. As with so many books, the subtitle makes the point. This becomes a communication topic because none of us can reach an audience that will not listen.

Heffernan goes on to examine in detail ten important causes of willful blindness, with examples ranging from match.com’s use of affinity (like attracts like) to the role of fatigue in the disastrous explosion at BP’s Texas City oil refinery to the factor of being too sure of one’s ideas in the collapse of the world economy.  She makes interesting connections by means of these causes. For example, Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, held onto the idea that “free, competitive markets are by far the unrivaled way to organize economies (quoted on p. 59)” long after the derivatives market endangered the economy in ways that he, of all observers, should have seen. He chose to hold onto what he already believed rather than see the facts in front of his face, a trait he shares with much of the world’s population, including some folks who believed that an alien space ship would save them from a world-ending flood back in 1954. Even after their entire prophecy proved false, most of them continued to believe, just as many American politicians continue to believe in “free, competitive markets” today.

Heffernan uses a chapter to examine each of the ten causes of willful blindness, and then gives us hope by including a chapter on people who do not blind themselves and one more chapter on ways to reduce one’s own blindness. Heffernan weaves her stories together very neatly around her themes, never losing track of the need to keep the reader involved. She uses a wide range of history and research to support her ideas, but this book reads far better than an academic paper. (Following up the endnotes is optional.) She gives a good bibliography and index, each of which increases the academic value and believability of Willful Blindness.

If you ever ask, “What was he thinking?” or “How could they not know?” read this book.

Party pooper re health insurance changes

Yep, they changed the laws about health insurance. I can expect a fine if I don't buy health insurance in 2014, assuming I live that long without health insurance. From an insurer viewpoint, profits from the 30 or so million new customers ought to offset the new rules. Please note that the new laws do nothing for prices and do not require very many specific coverages. Of course, the long lag time before the laws take effect gives insurers time to escape unwelcome new provisions by using the same scare tactics and heavy applications of cash that sabotaged the current bills.

Congress failed at two very important things. First and worst, they did not remove the antitrust exemption that health insurers enjoy. All of these politicians going on and on about the value of competition are either lying or grossly ignorant. Health insurers are exempt by law from competition.

More people are aware of the failure to include a public option in the changes. This also relates to competition. A publicly funded health care plan would (a) probably reduce costs a bit due to government entities not needing to make profits and (b) give the private companies a real incentive to compete that is lacking today. Such a large operation would also (c) provide leverage in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, hospital chains and other large providers of care.

All in all, as an uninsured American, I don't see this as helpful. It's just a political gesture, "sound and fury signifying nothing."

Bernanke: A new used car

Bernanke: Too big to fail

Posted using ShareThis

This link goes to a CNN Money article pointing out that Wall Street will "punish" the country by dropping market values should Ben Bernanke not be appointed to a second term. It goes on to give a coherent history explaining exactly why he must not be re-appointed.

Bernanke captained the ship that sailed full speed ahead onto the rocks where it remains. He then played a leading part in rewarding the bankers who steered it there. The fact that Wall Street now has the power to punish the US government ought to be a message: these banks are too big not to fail. This country, or any other, cannot afford business interests big enough to overpower the government. Bernanke has ably represented the bankers against the interests of the United States. This must stop.

Specifically, Bernanke's central offense, as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has been to keep interest rates inappropriately low, leading to the credit bubble that collapsed and brought the entire economy down with it. Bernanke still insists that Federal policy did not cause the crash, thus clearly demonstrating that he has yet to learn from his mistake.

Bernanke's more current offense is the bailout. He did his best to pour over $700 billion into Wall Street, resulting primarily in obscene bonus payments to the bankers who are the agents of the disaster. Meanwhile, lending to small businesses, the best chance of reviving the economy, has dropped dramatically. Those specific decisions have been made by the people who are receiving bonuses for no reason that I can imagine.

Obviously, I disagree with the article's conclusion that Bernanke should be retained because he "has been at the helm for so long." The ship is on the rocks; the captain insists upon keeping it there. Get rid of him. Let's find somebody to patch up the holes and get afloat again.

Supreme Court Enables Corporate Corruption

The Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS), in its alleged wisdom, has decided that corporations may use essentially unlimited money to influence candidates' elections under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

The legal issue here is that US law treats corporations as if they were individual people. This is ludicrous. People create corporations as devices to make money. For-profit corporations, by law, serve the sole purpose of increasing the wealth of shareholders. They cannot have any sort of moral values above greed. None. Thus, treating a corporate entity as if it should have concern for its customers, neighbors or environment, as most individual people do, makes no sense. Such concern, carried out in action, could bring about shareholder lawsuits.

Corporations differ from persons in another important way. Most corporations have money, and thus power, that only an elite few individuals can even imagine. They can invest in politicians freely, and the return on those investments far exceeds any honest way of making a living. It is the sole duty of corporations to make money, and using politicians is the easiest way of doing so in many cases. A wealthy individual might invest in politicians in order to benefit the town where he lives, to forward a personal cause he favors or for the feeling of power. Corporations do it strictly for the money.

Two appropriate responses to this decision come to mind. The first and the more obvious, lies in making the status of corporations better fitted to their function. We need to recognize that companies cannot be responsible for their own ethical behavior; too many conficting factors inhibit that. Regulation obviously fits the bill here, but with additions such as a "death penalty" (dissolution) for those corporate entities that repeatedly violate the laws affecting them. Another good idea is to hold directors and/or executives criminally responsible for the behavior of the corporate entities they control.

The more important response to the Supreme Court decision is to change our election financing system. In this, we already lag behind most of the developed world. Put simply, the politicians will respond to the people only to the degree that the people hold the power over their election. So long as elections are financed by corporations and wealthy donors, the odds of that remain as slim under the Democrats as they were under the Republicans. The chances of third parties gaining power under the current system and being able to change it are even smaller. Implementing one form or another of public financing will result in major government budget savings as contributors lose the power to buy pork barrel projects worth orders of magnitude more than the contributions, to block reforms aimed at making them pay taxes and to commit various other acts of greed. Other special interests would also find themselves less favored by the politicians they currently elect. For one example, a variety of conservative Christian organizations recieved $206 for providing "abstinence-only" sex education in 2006. They would probably would have to recognize the abundant evidence that their product does not serve any of its stated purposes. They would lose that money unless they can produce believable progress. Results would begin to count. All in all, public election financing is both cheaper and a far better investment than bridges to nowhere, oil industry subsidies or "abstinence only" sex education ever have been.