The Hubris of Representative Government
By Mark Sump
How arrogant to think that our elected representatives should know more than the collective knowledge of the voting public. How arrogant to suggest that we should pass a comprehensive health reform package rather than just the parts of the plan that are more popular.
Well, there we go! Let’s do that! Let’s pass a law that says an insurance company cannot deny coverage to someone with pre-existing conditions. Problem solved! Now no one will need to pay those outrageous insurance premiums until they know they’re sick. Think of how much money that will save us all.
Come to think of it, those lottery rules suck too. Let’s sell the lottery tickets after the winning numbers are announced. And what about Harry Reid’s home state where gambling is so popular. Imagine how much more popular black jack would be if you could bet after all the cards are played.
The reality is that if we are going to have a health insurance system that is affordable and fair at the same time, everyone has to be covered. It won’t work any other way.
U. S. Government is not and never was designed to work according to just what is popular. That’s right. Our elected officials should have a better understanding of the facts behind a piece of legislation than the 300 million other people who haven’t read the CBO report or even knows what a CBO is. Our system of representative government was established to elect smart people to make hard choices on our behalf. They should know more than the rest of us.
We should not assume that popular opinion is right. Just over a year ago the notion of widespread change in our health care system was soaring in popularity. A year before that Barack Obama was opposed to the mandated health insurance coverage that Hillary Clinton favored. Now it is obvious to him and anyone genuinely following this health care debate, that if you want to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions you have to force everyone to pay into the system. In order to force everyone to pay into the system you have to subsidize those individuals who can’t afford to pay into the system. Once everyone is in the system, insurance premiums will become more affordable, but only if you have true competition for those insurance dollars. Therefore, you have to break up the monopolies that these huge health insurance companies are allowed to hold under the current law.
This is what we’re talking about. These are the facts. People who prefer to govern by popular opinion don’t need these facts. The idea of forcing people to buy insurance is unpopular. The idea that we would subsidize people to pay for health insurance they can’t afford is unpopular. The idea that insurance companies should be regulated is unpopular. The problem is that we have to do all of these things if we want health insurance to be affordable and fair to everyone.
Anyone who professes we can have incremental change short of doing all of these unpopular things at once is not doing their job. The job of our elected officials is to be smart and make tough decisions.
The next thing on the public agenda is going to be even tougher, yet no less important. Climate Change is very real and will require tough decisions no matter how unpopular. Some will say that this winter’s record snow fall in the Northeast is proof that climate change is fiction. The fact is that January was the warmest January on record worldwide. The fact is that we are pouring 90 million tons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every day. The fact is that we are headed to the edge of a cliff and very soon we will no longer be able to stop before the abyss.
Even if we choose to ignore the fact of global warming, there is no ignoring the fact that we are transferring billions and billions of dollars to countries that are funding hatred toward us. We are funding Iran’s nuclear arms program. We are funding radical, fundamentalist schools throughout the Middle East who are teaching an entire generation of Muslims that we are evil and must be destroyed.
Knowing any of these facts, why on earth would anyone elected to represent our interests suggest that we do nothing to move us toward a more verdant future? And yet, there are elected officials who scoff at a Climate Change bill as an unnecessary tax brought on by liberal elitists. Public opinion is already being moved toward this notion and away from the facts that make such a bill necessary.
Smart, responsible people know the facts. Doing nothing is easy, but doing nothing is seldom right. I hope that the majority of our elected officials will embrace the hubris of representative government and make the tough choices. This is your job. It is not your job to ignore facts and do nothing.
Volunteers are back
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Just Do It
If you’re going to foul…foul
What we learned 16 years ago
By Mark Sump
My son is 16, six foot four and plays varsity basketball at his high school. I attend all of his games. A couple weeks ago his team was playing one of the top teams in the conference. It was close. The other team stole the ball, drove the floor and went in for the lay up. There was one player between him and the basket. They both went up. Our player was trying not to foul, but there was no chance he wouldn’t. He tried to block the ball, but it was out of reach. The ball went in and the foul was called. I thought to myself, if you’re going to foul…foul. Don’t let the shot go in.
Sixteen years ago we tried to pass health care reform. We failed. That year the Republicans took the House. First time in decades. They patted themselves on the back and told the country it was because they succeeded in pushing back against change, against finally bringing true reform to our health care system.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won an electoral landslide. The campaign was built on hope and change. The cornerstone issue was health care reform. He had a mandate. He really did. Then he ran into a Democratic Congress who played not to lose. The more change that was proposed, the dimmer the outlook was for Democrats in Congress. They hesitated. They blinked. They were afraid to lose. Guess what? They lost anyway.
The reality is that Democrats were destined to lose the moment they took the change mantel. As much as America likes the sound of change, we fear it even more. We are easily convinced change will ruin our economy, take our jobs, take our freedom, dictate our lives. Republicans get this. They drove that fear into the spine of Congress, and Democrats let them dunk the ball and take the penalty shot. Republicans would probably have won just as many seats in 1994 had we passed comprehensive health reform.
If we had passed health reform in 1993, for years the narrative would have been that we went too far, but we would have passed legislation that would have altered the course of history. We would have saved lives. We would have saved sick Americans from bankruptcy. We would have prevented illness. We would have brought real change to a very broken system.
So, here we are sixteen years later. We’re playing defense. The Republicans are going up for the dunk. Democrats have a decision to make. Do we stop them from scoring and take the penalty, or do we try not to foul.
We can learn from the past. We can know that sixteen years ago as many people were discouraged by our lack of ability to bring real change as were afraid of what that change might bring. Democrats can stand up today, knowing they will lose in November but knowing they did the right thing. Sixteen years ago we blinked and we know the results. History shows we’re going to lose seats in Congress if we do nothing.
So, do the right thing. Pass health care reform. Pass a public option. Pass a Medicare buy-in. Do it by any means possible. Pass a real reform by reconciliation.
If you’re going to foul…foul.
What we learned 16 years ago
By Mark Sump
My son is 16, six foot four and plays varsity basketball at his high school. I attend all of his games. A couple weeks ago his team was playing one of the top teams in the conference. It was close. The other team stole the ball, drove the floor and went in for the lay up. There was one player between him and the basket. They both went up. Our player was trying not to foul, but there was no chance he wouldn’t. He tried to block the ball, but it was out of reach. The ball went in and the foul was called. I thought to myself, if you’re going to foul…foul. Don’t let the shot go in.
Sixteen years ago we tried to pass health care reform. We failed. That year the Republicans took the House. First time in decades. They patted themselves on the back and told the country it was because they succeeded in pushing back against change, against finally bringing true reform to our health care system.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won an electoral landslide. The campaign was built on hope and change. The cornerstone issue was health care reform. He had a mandate. He really did. Then he ran into a Democratic Congress who played not to lose. The more change that was proposed, the dimmer the outlook was for Democrats in Congress. They hesitated. They blinked. They were afraid to lose. Guess what? They lost anyway.
The reality is that Democrats were destined to lose the moment they took the change mantel. As much as America likes the sound of change, we fear it even more. We are easily convinced change will ruin our economy, take our jobs, take our freedom, dictate our lives. Republicans get this. They drove that fear into the spine of Congress, and Democrats let them dunk the ball and take the penalty shot. Republicans would probably have won just as many seats in 1994 had we passed comprehensive health reform.
If we had passed health reform in 1993, for years the narrative would have been that we went too far, but we would have passed legislation that would have altered the course of history. We would have saved lives. We would have saved sick Americans from bankruptcy. We would have prevented illness. We would have brought real change to a very broken system.
So, here we are sixteen years later. We’re playing defense. The Republicans are going up for the dunk. Democrats have a decision to make. Do we stop them from scoring and take the penalty, or do we try not to foul.
We can learn from the past. We can know that sixteen years ago as many people were discouraged by our lack of ability to bring real change as were afraid of what that change might bring. Democrats can stand up today, knowing they will lose in November but knowing they did the right thing. Sixteen years ago we blinked and we know the results. History shows we’re going to lose seats in Congress if we do nothing.
So, do the right thing. Pass health care reform. Pass a public option. Pass a Medicare buy-in. Do it by any means possible. Pass a real reform by reconciliation.
If you’re going to foul…foul.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Three degrees of separation
How a big volunteer operation wins
By Mark Sump
One of the lasting affects of the old political paradigm is that volunteer activities are free or cheap ways to marginally influence an election. It follows the old school thinking that it’s the number of phone calls made or the number of doors knocked that are the real influence volunteers can deliver. By that thinking, the volunteer influence merely displaces some of the phoning or canvassing that the campaign plans to outsource at the end of the campaign leading up to Election Day.
On its face one would think that this form of stressing volunteer activity fits with the new paradigm. Let’s review the most essential element of the paradigm: Television now reinforces opinions voters form by virtue of recommendations from people around them, friends, neighbors, co-workers…etc.
Voter contact activities from volunteers in a campaign do have more impact than a telemarketing company or paid canvassers. This impact is still only marginal. So, how do volunteers substantially impact a campaign if not through direct voter contact?
Three degrees of separation!!
When I started working on campaigns 25 years ago, we had no email, no cell phones, no computers, no internet, no telemarketing centers, no mail houses. We had volunteers and we depended on those volunteers for nearly every element of voter contact.
I recall my first presidential campaign in 1988 and my boss explaining to me the first tenet of my three degrees of separation theory: Every volunteer on a campaign will influence the vote of 50 voters by virtue of who they talk to in their own lives…friends, neighbors, family, co-workers. It isn’t about how many people they reached on the phone bank or at the doors. It’s all about who they come into contact with in their daily lives.
Remember, the new paradigm: Voters are primarily influenced by people around them, people they trust.
Okay, so lets do the math. If a campaign has 1000 active volunteers and they each influence 50 voters, the first degree of separation is 50,000 votes.
So lets say that the second degree of separation is calculated at 20% of that, so those 50,000 voters each influence 10 voters. The second degree of separation adds 500,000 voters. So now we’re at 551,000 voters.
Okay, now we’re cooking. The third degree of separation is calculated again at 20%, so those 500,000 voters will each influence 2 voters. The third degree of separation adds 1,000,000 voters.
Now we’re at 1,551,000 votes! Think about it. How many campaigns are won with 1.55 million votes?
Figuring out how many volunteers you need is rather simple. Take the expected vote and divide it by 1,551 and that will give you the number of volunteers a campaign needs to win.
This is the crux of the new paradigm…people win campaigns.
Next week I’ll define “active volunteer” in Volunteers Win Campaigns.
How a big volunteer operation wins
By Mark Sump
One of the lasting affects of the old political paradigm is that volunteer activities are free or cheap ways to marginally influence an election. It follows the old school thinking that it’s the number of phone calls made or the number of doors knocked that are the real influence volunteers can deliver. By that thinking, the volunteer influence merely displaces some of the phoning or canvassing that the campaign plans to outsource at the end of the campaign leading up to Election Day.
On its face one would think that this form of stressing volunteer activity fits with the new paradigm. Let’s review the most essential element of the paradigm: Television now reinforces opinions voters form by virtue of recommendations from people around them, friends, neighbors, co-workers…etc.
Voter contact activities from volunteers in a campaign do have more impact than a telemarketing company or paid canvassers. This impact is still only marginal. So, how do volunteers substantially impact a campaign if not through direct voter contact?
Three degrees of separation!!
When I started working on campaigns 25 years ago, we had no email, no cell phones, no computers, no internet, no telemarketing centers, no mail houses. We had volunteers and we depended on those volunteers for nearly every element of voter contact.
I recall my first presidential campaign in 1988 and my boss explaining to me the first tenet of my three degrees of separation theory: Every volunteer on a campaign will influence the vote of 50 voters by virtue of who they talk to in their own lives…friends, neighbors, family, co-workers. It isn’t about how many people they reached on the phone bank or at the doors. It’s all about who they come into contact with in their daily lives.
Remember, the new paradigm: Voters are primarily influenced by people around them, people they trust.
Okay, so lets do the math. If a campaign has 1000 active volunteers and they each influence 50 voters, the first degree of separation is 50,000 votes.
So lets say that the second degree of separation is calculated at 20% of that, so those 50,000 voters each influence 10 voters. The second degree of separation adds 500,000 voters. So now we’re at 551,000 voters.
Okay, now we’re cooking. The third degree of separation is calculated again at 20%, so those 500,000 voters will each influence 2 voters. The third degree of separation adds 1,000,000 voters.
Now we’re at 1,551,000 votes! Think about it. How many campaigns are won with 1.55 million votes?
Figuring out how many volunteers you need is rather simple. Take the expected vote and divide it by 1,551 and that will give you the number of volunteers a campaign needs to win.
This is the crux of the new paradigm…people win campaigns.
Next week I’ll define “active volunteer” in Volunteers Win Campaigns.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Walter Cronkite is Dead
And so is trust in the media
By Mark Sump
The new paradigm hinges largely on the theory that broadcast television is no longer the chief source of information on which voters base their voting decisions. The fact is that the people who tune into Fox News are not looking for a fair and balanced discussion. They’re looking for reinforcement of their core beliefs.
I’ll admit it. I watch MSNBC because I generally agree with the views expressed on MSNBC. (Love Rachel!) But, it isn’t where I my vote is shaped.
Cronkite is dead, and people no longer trust as fact what they see on television. Without that trust, TV is no longer the pervasive source of information from which voters make their core voting decisions. So, where are they getting their information? How are votes being shaped?
Twenty-five years ago when I was just out of college, I was sitting with a friend, Amy, bemoaning my life. “What do I want to be when I grow up” as is the common refrain for a twenty-something waiting tables and biding time. Amy asked me what I enjoy. I said I like politics. She said, “Then do that.” Not knowing what she meant I shrugged my shoulders and said “yeah that’s a good idea.” “No,” she said, “pick two campaigns that interest you, call them and volunteer”.
Amy handed me the phone and that’s when my life took one of those proverbial forks in the road. I was living in Kansas City, right on the border between Kansas and Missouri. The first campaign I chose to call was Kit Bond’s campaign for Senate in Missouri…a Republican. I didn’t know much about him, but I thought anyone named Kit Bond had to be cool. I called the campaign, no one was there, left a message.
The second campaign was for Tom Docking running for Governor in Kansas…a Democrat. Again, didn’t know much about him except that his dad was Governor and my dad always said good things about him. I called the campaign, no one was there, left a message.
My choices were virtually random. It had never occurred to me to call a campaign and volunteer and the Bond and Docking campaigns were simply the only ones that came to mind at that very moment. I didn’t know who was the Democrat or who was the Republican and I didn’t much care.
Here’s the punch line: The Bond campaign never called me back. The Docking campaign did. That’s how I became a Democrat. I started volunteering that next week and a week after that they hired me.
Today I am surrounded by other Democrats. My clients are all Democrats. The few Republican friends I have are just token friends who are to be tolerated. (I don’t mean you if you think you’re my friend and you’re a Republican).
I have gone from completely non-partisan to moderate Midwestern Democrat to Minnesota Liberal. After 12 years inside the Washington Beltway, I have became a nauseatingly Northeastern Progressive.
My progression in political thinking did not come about based in any way on what I saw on television. My core beliefs are very clearly formed by the people who surround my daily life; my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors.
The point is that the most powerful source of information for voters is other voters. The best way to affect a voter is a friend’s recommendation. The bigger your army of volunteers, the more votes you’ll get. This year the winning campaigns are going to have a new player in their inner circle; a consultant whose job it is to keep the campaign focused on a single mantra: Volunteers are back and they’re winning campaigns again.
That’s the new paradigm
Next week I’ll do some math and talk about the 3 degrees of separation.
And so is trust in the media
By Mark Sump
The new paradigm hinges largely on the theory that broadcast television is no longer the chief source of information on which voters base their voting decisions. The fact is that the people who tune into Fox News are not looking for a fair and balanced discussion. They’re looking for reinforcement of their core beliefs.
I’ll admit it. I watch MSNBC because I generally agree with the views expressed on MSNBC. (Love Rachel!) But, it isn’t where I my vote is shaped.
Cronkite is dead, and people no longer trust as fact what they see on television. Without that trust, TV is no longer the pervasive source of information from which voters make their core voting decisions. So, where are they getting their information? How are votes being shaped?
Twenty-five years ago when I was just out of college, I was sitting with a friend, Amy, bemoaning my life. “What do I want to be when I grow up” as is the common refrain for a twenty-something waiting tables and biding time. Amy asked me what I enjoy. I said I like politics. She said, “Then do that.” Not knowing what she meant I shrugged my shoulders and said “yeah that’s a good idea.” “No,” she said, “pick two campaigns that interest you, call them and volunteer”.
Amy handed me the phone and that’s when my life took one of those proverbial forks in the road. I was living in Kansas City, right on the border between Kansas and Missouri. The first campaign I chose to call was Kit Bond’s campaign for Senate in Missouri…a Republican. I didn’t know much about him, but I thought anyone named Kit Bond had to be cool. I called the campaign, no one was there, left a message.
The second campaign was for Tom Docking running for Governor in Kansas…a Democrat. Again, didn’t know much about him except that his dad was Governor and my dad always said good things about him. I called the campaign, no one was there, left a message.
My choices were virtually random. It had never occurred to me to call a campaign and volunteer and the Bond and Docking campaigns were simply the only ones that came to mind at that very moment. I didn’t know who was the Democrat or who was the Republican and I didn’t much care.
Here’s the punch line: The Bond campaign never called me back. The Docking campaign did. That’s how I became a Democrat. I started volunteering that next week and a week after that they hired me.
Today I am surrounded by other Democrats. My clients are all Democrats. The few Republican friends I have are just token friends who are to be tolerated. (I don’t mean you if you think you’re my friend and you’re a Republican).
I have gone from completely non-partisan to moderate Midwestern Democrat to Minnesota Liberal. After 12 years inside the Washington Beltway, I have became a nauseatingly Northeastern Progressive.
My progression in political thinking did not come about based in any way on what I saw on television. My core beliefs are very clearly formed by the people who surround my daily life; my friends, my co-workers, my neighbors.
The point is that the most powerful source of information for voters is other voters. The best way to affect a voter is a friend’s recommendation. The bigger your army of volunteers, the more votes you’ll get. This year the winning campaigns are going to have a new player in their inner circle; a consultant whose job it is to keep the campaign focused on a single mantra: Volunteers are back and they’re winning campaigns again.
That’s the new paradigm
Next week I’ll do some math and talk about the 3 degrees of separation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)