The Founders Are Still Warning Us, 250 Years Later

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary, we will hear tributes to the Founders and see politicians wrap themselves in the “Spirit of 1776.”

My new Hartford Courant opinion piece argues that we should stop treating the Founders as patriotic decoration and take their warnings about executive overreach, congressional weakness, and the use of public office for personal gain seriously.

American exceptionalism is best understood as a commitment to the restraint of power. That commitment is being tested.

Many who most loudly invoke the Founders are not preserving our inheritance. They are squandering it.

Big Ideas versus Incremental Steps is a False Choice

A key takeaway message being reported from yesterday’s Democratic Town Hall in Iowa is the divide between big ideas and incremental steps. In general, I don’t like mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed this before in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold moves. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views.

I know it’s hard for politicians to get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, or to swing for a homerun. But it’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems.

This applies beyond our politics and social ills. In the world of medicine, for example, Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center said, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." And, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer.”

As we approach another Federal election, it’s worthwhile remembering that our Founding Fathers were believers in the proverb “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many in the Continental Congress wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain.There would be no United States of America unless they could agree. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Small strides can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We should embrace and celebrate the completion of each step along the way.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

Science Denial, the U.S. and Us

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Before a Call to Action, We Need Insights and a Plan

Professor Adam Frank at the University of Rochester rang a warning bell about the dangers of science denial in an important op-ed (Welcome to the Age of Denial) in The New York Times last week. He stated the sad fact that, “it is politically effective, and socially acceptable, to deny scientific fact.” Science denial is becoming more entrenched and culturally correct.

This juggernaut of illogic is like a cancer that has metastasized. He noted that, “climate deniers, taking pages from the creationists’ PR playbook, have manufactured doubt about fundamental issues in climate science that were decided scientifically decades ago. And anti-vaccine campaigners brandish a few long-discredited studies to make unproven claims about links between autism and vaccination.”

How do we fight this? Dr. Frank called on the scientific community to channel Carl Sagan, the late astronomer, author and science personality, and do more communicating (and for the general public to be more active, too). The Equation blog from the Union of Concerned Scientists echoed this “call to action.”

Yes, scientists must learn how to engage and how to communicate. I know there are some efforts underway at institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences and Stony Brook University’s Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science but, no matter what, there are critical steps that must come first. We need to ask questions and use the resulting information to generate the insights necessary to develop and implement a plan.

So, a “call to action” directed where, with what information, in what form? Before anything is done, we must understand the causes, motivations and forces at work. What are the religious, political and corporate interests, and what are their strategies and tactics? And, we must know our target audiences, and their issues and concerns. What’s the right language, the most compelling examples, what will it take to be persuasive? We know it’s not just about the facts – otherwise, everyone would accept global warming and evolution, no one would smoke, kids would get vaccinated and all motorcyclists would wear helmets. Scientists (and marketing and communications professionals) need to marry specific, emotionally-based messages with the factual.

The news media, of course, have a huge role to play. In misguided attempts to achieve fair balance (or, cynically, sometimes achieve the outcomes they wish), the media feeds into false equivalency – providing equal coverage to opposing views when, in reality, one side dramatically outweighs the other. An example was brought into the sunshine on the pages of The Wall Street Journal. It published a letter last year, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming (January 27, 2012), that said, “There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.” The editor noted the letter “has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article.” I checked those names. Of the 16, there was only one climate researcher and one atmospheric scientist. 

Indeed, a few days later, another letter was published entitled, “Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate.” The 38 climate, environmental and atmospherics experts who signed the letter admonished, “Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition?” They went on: “While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses.”

This isn’t just about promoting the truth or science getting its fair share. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, told The New York Times in 2005 that “People’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.” The Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy points out that “Many of the nation’s founding fathers were citizen scientists,” including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and George Washington. “John Adams, for instance, spoke of the “science of government.” In a debate with Benjamin Franklin in 1776, Adams invoked the principle of mechanical equilibrium to argue on behalf of his conception for our government’s system of checks and balances—designed, at least in part, to ensure policies based on verified, trustworthy evidence."

We've had one ”wake-up call" after another on the issue of science denial. But it's complex -- there isn't just one thing we should do. To start, though, we must review and revere our history, and use those founding principles again. The nation began with questioning dogma, exploring options, celebrating invention and spreading information. That brought us a long way and it can bring us further still.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher. 

The Incremental Excuse

Aurora and the Rejection of Small Steps

In the aftermath of the tragedy at the Aurora, CO movie theater, the pundits, politicians and lobbyists were at it again with all of the typical arguments about gun control in full force. Both sides of the issue dusted off the same statements they’ve used following the shooting of Gaby Giffords, and the massacres at Fort Hood, Binghamton, Virginia Tech, Columbine and on and on. We weep, we mourn, we do it again.

At the core is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America (ratified in 1791): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

One the one side:

·     The Second Amendment has been ridiculously over-interpreted. (The Fox show Family Guy took a satirical jab at the subject.)

·     We need to limit the number and type of guns available for sale to the public, especially those designed for combat.

·     We must ensure that those who own them do so legally after appropriate background checks and registration.

·     Ammunition that is designed to inflict maximal damage and penetrate body armor should be banned, as should high capacity magazines.

On the other side:

·     Our freedom is threatened and the country is undermined if the individual right to bear arms is in any way curtailed.

·     The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm whether or not it’s used in connection with service in a militia.

·     If we lived in a more moral society, we would not see people misusing guns.

·     Gun laws won’t stop the insane from finding ways to kill people.

Personally, I have a difficult time with the last four points but the last is particularly irksome – the rationale that inaction is the best option. The line is that stricter gun laws won’t cut down on violence. It might cut down on gun violence but the violent will find other ways to fulfill their intent.

It’s the same line of reasoning used to say that we shouldn’t invest in solar or wind energy because it would only be drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Opponents to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) want it replaced or repealed; there’s nothing to negotiate. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

Enough! We have to start someplace. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s not happening. “Whatever axiom you want to use – half a loaf is better than none or Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good” (originally, Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien) – incrementalism is hard to accept but equally hard to forswear.” That’s what I wrote in my book, Camelot, Inc., and it seems appropriate to repeat it here.

We should remember that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted that it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence was a compromise. It was a step. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

Of course we must cherish our individual rights but we are one nation. Those who love the Constitution should think deeply about its first line: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Please note the words “We” and “general welfare.” And notice also “union,” “Justice” and “domestic Tranquility.” The Founding Fathers would be in tears if they could see how we’ve misused and abused their words, and became one of the most violent societies on earth.

Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon.

Congress and state legislatures across the country should take note. Indeed, we need to elect leaders with the courage and conviction to move the country forward. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

1776 Déjà Vu?

So Much Hinges On So Few

One of my children was just watching the movie version of 1776, the musical show about the events leading up to and including the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In the Broadway account, the fate of the document, the fate of the world, came down to James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania was, indeed, torn between reconciliation and war with England. In a last gasp appeal, John Adams spoke out. "It would be a pity for a man who has handed down hundreds of wise decisions from the bench to be remembered only for the one unwise decision he made in Congress." Wilson (who, in reality, spoke forcefully for independence) relented. He didn't want the attention or the responsibility. "Mr. Adams is correct about one thing," he said. "If I vote with you [John Dickinson], I'll be the one who prevented American independence."

Healthcare reform and the signing of the Declaration of Independence may not be in the same league of American milestones, but the parallel struck me. Of course, there have been many, many instances where critical decisions came down to one unsuspecting or unprepared (or manipulative) person. But here we are. With the so-called public option going down to defeat in the Senate Finance Committee, it is now highly unlikely that any subsequent amendments with such a provision will survive.

And what does that mean? The table is set for Senator Olympia Snowe to play James Wilson. Sixty votes will be needed for passage and it's looking more and more like achieving meaningful (though highly compromised and far from perfect) healthcare reform any time in the foreseeable future will rest with the capable centrist from Maine.

The optics aren't pretty -- the old saying about laws being like sausages comes to mind. And what got us to this point hasn't been any more attractive. The raucous Town Hall meetings over the summer -- the shouting down of elected officials and the perpetuation of false claims -- did not instill confidence in the process of creating legislation. Politicians need to pay more attention to this point. The substance is important but, when it comes to building trust and unity, the visuals and the tone mean a great deal, too.

While one voice may decide the fate of healthcare reform, it's interesting to note which voices went largely unheard. The most vocal weren't those with the most to gain -- the roughly 46 million without insurance. The squeakiest wheels were found on those who believed that reform will diminish their care or cost them more money. They had the best access to the media, the best messaging consultants. So much for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for the rest.

Yet, some major groups that were lined up against previous reform efforts -- most notably the pharmaceutical industry and organized medicine -- are now advertising their support. Despite the bad press over the haranguing and arguing, there has been much more engagement, much more deal making and number crunching. Making a business case, not just an emotional one, may be the winning formula this time around.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.