Brand Obama–now with more awards!

Barack Obama's presidential campaign has again won a major advertising award. A month before winning the presidency, he won Advertising Age's annual "Marketer of the Year" for 2008. Now, his campaign manager, David Plouffe, has won Brandweek's "Marketer of the Year" for 2009. What better commentary on the state of contemporary American society could there be? Our president is a master marketer, or more precisely, employs a team of master marketers. In a society that is dedicated to worshiping at the altar of consumerism, perhaps it's unsurprising that this is the case, but it still is shocking to me. Once I began researching for this article, I really was surprised at the extent to which "Brand Obama" has penetrated our national consciousness. His logo and posters have become iconic. His slogan, "Yes we can" is everywhere-- it's also a marketer's dream. It's devoid of any clarity or substance, and yet it makes you feel good, possibly empowered. "Just do it", anyone? Actually, his campaign beat out the Nike campaign (and even Apple!) for top honors. You can go to mybarackobama.com and sign for immediate updates from Facebook, Myspace, Youtube, Flickr, Twitter, and several other web 2.0 services. You can get Obama on your mobile phone by texting "hope" to 62262-- it's just as easy as voting for the next American Idol! The media is relentlessly focused on what Michelle Obama is wearing next, and there is at least one blog offering daily updates on her clothing choices ("Follow the fashion of Mrs. O.:What and Whom she's wearing"). For those who are tuned-in, you can even do Ecstasy tablets shaped like Obama. One wonders where does politics end and the cult of personality begin?

Continue ReadingBrand Obama–now with more awards!

Dark days and “Green Shoots”

“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” --Supreme Court Justice Lous D. Brandeis
For all the discussion of "green shoots" and an economy on the mend, there's plenty of data and commentary to the contrary. What's interesting to me, is that recent developments only highlight the extent to which Main Street economics have become irrelevant to Wall Street. The administration is claiming that the crisis is largely over, and that it's time to breathe a sigh of relief. President Obama yesterday argued that "we can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break." Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner discussed last week beginning to wind down some of the programs that were implemented in the heat of the crisis late last year. The value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen from its July low of 8146, and is now trading around 9600. Everything seems well and good in the world of high-finance. But others see it differently. Nobel-prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argued this week that nothing has been done to address the underlying banking problems that created the mess in the first place, adding that "the problems are worse than they were in 2007 before the crisis." Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the IMF, echoes that sentiment, and points out that the real issues underlying the crisis have not been addressed at all. He lays out 4 areas of concern:
  1. The big banks need to be made to be dramatically smaller.
  2. Executives need to have a great deal of their personal wealth tied up in their banks to prevent a reckless focus on short-term results.
  3. An end to the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, DC. "There is no way people should be able to go directly (or even overnight) from a failing bank to designing bailout packages to benefit such banks. In any other industry, in any other country, and at any other time in American history, this would have been seen as an unconscionable conflict of interest. "
  4. The financial elite is aware that they are able to exploit the Federal Reserve and use it as a "bailout machine".

Continue ReadingDark days and “Green Shoots”

Was Obama a liar?

I'm shaking my head at the terrible news coverage of Republican Joe Wilson's outburst during Barack Obama's health care speech last night. I'm not denying that Wilson's rude behavior is news, but look what's missing in prominent articles covering this story: Was Obama lying? It would seem that reporters should be asking whether Obama ever previously took a position on whether illegal aliens should be covered under what he proposes to be the new health care plan. Consider this AP article, which does what you expect. Wilson is rude; Wilson called the President a liar during a nationally broadcast session of Congress; the President looked stunned; Wilson was heavily criticized; John McCain is applauded for saying the obvious, that Wilson should apologize; Wilson does apologize; lots of head shaking; what will his behavior mean for Republicans? If I were teaching journalism school, I would tell my cub reporters to figure out whether Obama has ever promoted national health care coverage for illegal aliens. Then I would tell them to report on this central issue. If Obama has promoted health care coverage for illegal aliens, he was a liar. If he has never taken this position, then Joe Wilson is a liar. If Obama had previously taken the position that illegal aliens won't be covered, then Joe Wilson is a big fat despicable liar. If Joe Wilson turns out to be a liar, then his apology would need to go much further than it did; it would need to admit not only that he was rude but that he was the liar; he would need to admit that Obama never advocated health care coverage for illegal aliens. In any case, Wilson should be cross-examined like this by reporters: On what basis did you claim that Obama was lying? Show us your evidence. If Wilson has no evidence, he should admit that he had no evidence, and then he should add that he makes things up and that he is exactly the sort of mindless obstructionist to health care that shouldn't be part of the conversation because he is not an evidence-based being. Unfortunately, the media is once again running wild with the conflict of the moment, with the apology and all the head-shaking. Instead of covering the obvious issue that would put an end to the big sideshow, most news stories have side-stepped it. This issue of coverage for illegal immigrants is important for many people. It would be great for the illegal immigrants, of course, but it would also drive up the bill for all of those people who pay taxes (this would include many illegal immigrants). This is an important and contentious issue that needs to be addressed clearly. But when Joe Wilson shouts that Obama is a liar, the media can't even get to the point: Was Obama a liar? It is so damned difficult to keep the media focused on the actual terms of proposed health care reform. I do think shouting "Liar" at a President could be appropriate, even in Congress, if the President were lying about an important issue. It would be an extraordinary thing to do, but what if, for example, the President was lying to Congress that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that a war would be a cheap cake-walk when he knew these to be lies. In that case, I would think it would be appropriate for a dissenting member of Congress to stand up and call him a liar in order to spare the lives of several thousand American soldier, to prevent tens of thousands of soldiers from being maimed and to prevent the deaths, injuries and homelessness of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people. Too bad no member of Congress had the guts to stand up and break the silence in early 2003.

Continue ReadingWas Obama a liar?

What KIND of health care?

The raging health care debate "debate" is almost entirely devoid of facts, an issue on which I've previously posted. Instead of discussing fact, then, we tend hurl vague accusations, like calling the reformers "communists" (and you've GOT to see this). I "blame" Obama for this lack of specificity, but I realize that the vicious opposition mounted by huge self-interested insurance companies and health care providers might require that he not play all of his cards at this point. But isn't it odd that our politicians aren't at least clarifying the term "health care coverage" when they refer to national health care coverage? Defining this term would make a huge difference to the public reaction to any national plan. Here are two possibilities (though there are others): A) The national plan will offer gold-plated coverage much like the expensive United Health Care coverage I buy for my family through my employer. For the record, the pre-tax cost of this coverage is about $20,000 per year for my family. Is the Obama proposal to provide every citizen with this kind of coverage? If so, I can see why there is massive resentment to the proposal. Many working people can barely afford health insurance coverage at all, and the coverage many people do purchase is not nearly as comprehensive as the expensive coverage I purchase. Of course people who can can only afford to buy their own rudimentary policies will resent that the government might buy gold-plated policies for everyone else, including many highly irresponsible people. B) The national plan will offer a rudimentary coverage only. It will cover x-rays and casts for broken arms, but not heart transplants and expensive drugs that only marginally increase one's chances of surviving an illness. It wouldn't keep people suffering from terminal illness on life support when there is no reasonable chance that they would ever leave the hospital. It would cover only a small subset of the treatments covered by gold-plated policies. It might be akin to the Oregon Plan. I believe that there would be massive resistance to the national coverage described in A) but far less resistance to the coverage described in B). At least Oregon's legislators had the cajunas to specifically state what was covered under their plan and what was not (Oregon's prioritized list is available for all to see). Oregon had the fiscal responsibility to make certain that they could afford the level of health care to which they were committing. Oregon dealt head-on with the accusation that they were "rationing" health care; absolutely they were, just like private plans ration health care only to those who pay those high premiums. Both responsible and irresponsible health care plans "ration" health care. Therefore, it is not a criticism of any health care plan that it "rations" health care. Here are the guiding principles to the Oregon Plan:

In 1987, the Oregon Legislature realized that it had no method for allocating resources for health care that was both effective and accountable. Over the next two years, policy objectives were developed to guide the drafting of legislation to address this problem. These policy objectives included:

• Acknowledgment that the goal is health rather than health services or health insurance • Commitment to a public process with structured public input • Commitment to meet budget constraints by reducing benefits rather than cutting people from coverage or reducing payments to levels below the cost of care • Commitment to use available resources to fund clinically effective treatments of conditions important to Oregonians • Development of explicit health service priorities to guide resource allocation decisions.

Our national conversation regarding health care is so dysfunction on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. I'll make only one more point in this post, however. Opponents of current proposals often make accusations that there will be "death panels," indicating that some sick people will be allowed to die. As a nation, we need to grow up and deal with the fact that this happens every day in every hospital in the country: we shouldn't be allocating huge amounts of money to maintain pulses in people who have become living corpses. There are some families who "can't let go" no matter what (e.g., Terry Schiavo), and our national plan needs to have specific guidelines for these situations. In fact, every private insurance plan should have guidelines for determining when further treatment is likely to be futile and a provision for ending coverage at that point. The alternative is to make policies so horrifically expensive that many people can't afford policies that cover tratments likely to make an immediate positive impact on their lives. Only when we put these issues clearly on the table can we begin to have a real conversation.

Continue ReadingWhat KIND of health care?