Dan Erwin

"Monkey Kabuki"

If you’re a history buff, happened to see “Inherit the Wind (1960) on a rerun, or are from Tennessee, you probably understand the reference to monkeys. The anti-evolution folks are at it again.

This is The Economist’s way of reminding its readers of the so-called “Scopes Monkey Trial” in 1925, where two of America’s greatest mouthpieces, Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued over evolution. In previous blogs, The market has spoken—conclusively—on climate change and, Is there something peculiarly American about the rejection of science, I opined on questions of science.

You’d think time would dim those issues, but instead, it gets worse. My wife, who happened to be a graduate of the bastion of evangelicalism, W-----n College in the 1950s, used to roll her eyes at the subject. On a few occasions, she informed me that evolution was a given in her science classes at the school. When I asked how they dealt with their theology, she smiled wryly and said something to the point of god instituting evolution as the means of creation.

Obviously, it was never a question of significance to her. But how time has changed elsewhere. It’s worse now than it was in the ‘50s.

As The Economist writes, the Tennessee legislature has passed another of those bills about science. Rather, about questioning the entire discipline. The bill in question required the state’s education system to encourage students to “explore scientific questions” and “respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about scientific subjects.” It passed by big majorities in both Tennessee chambers, and the governor declined to veto it. 

Though intelligent design and creationism are not mentioned, many are certain this is a back door, allowing teachers to introduce the subjects. I should say “reintroduce” those subjects. What is a bit surprising are the statistics about such bills. Since 2004, similar measures have been offered in 13 state legislatures. Only in one other state has the bill become law. Thankfully, Louisiana’s measure, which is law in the state, seems to have had no discernible effects. I say thankfully, because students who come to those conclusions will be limiting their future in science. That's especially true today, where the best vocational opportunities are in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering,and math). An engineering degree often requires an extensive science background in subjects of medical background, such as biology.

Flickr: photo by Doug888

So How Are You Going to Frame This Issue?

“We now face the exact predicament we expected. We must either allow interest rates to rise on student loans, or stick taxpayers with another multibillion-dollar bill.”

--Jennifer Allen, Republican spokeswoman, Minnesota Legislature

“On behalf of my generation, I should apologize to all of you. We tell you your education is important, which it is, that you should get as much of it as possible, which you should. That it will benefit you and society and the world, but we’re not going to help you pay for it. It’s a profound breakdown of the inter-generational compact.”

--Mark Dayton, Democratic Governor of Minnesota

It’s rare that I permit a newspaper article to strongly impact my emotions. I normally either ignore reports or add the data to my mental filing system and think through any needed system changes. When it’s a serious case of conflicting values like this morning, then the conflict can be challenging. So the front page of this morning’s Minneapolis Star Tribune really, really pissed-me off. The article reported on a conversation that UMN’s President Kaler, Governor Dayton and Senator Franken had with a number of students about loan indebtedness. (Lest there be any doubt, education is one of my highest values.)

The student loan debt of Minnesota students is fourth highest in the nation. The state’s college students who graduated in 2010 and borrowed had an average of $29,058 in student loan debt.

And there are plenty of students who are walking out of college with loan debt between $27 and $40,000.

Framing the issue
Democrats (Dayton) framed the issue as an intergenerational failure and Republicans (Allen) framed the issue as a tax-and-spend issue.

So the Democrats want us to think about the issue as an intergenerational failure. That’ll be a tough sell to the older generation who do much of the voting.

And Republicans want us to think about the issue as a demand on our pocket books, another tax issue. That’ll be an easy sell to the older generation.

FYI: Studies show that most of our decisions are made on an emotional basis. That’s not a completely negative way of deciding. Sometimes our emotions are smart. They’re useful for survival. Furthermore, it’s important to recognize that our tribal membership (Republican or Democrat) deeply impacts our decisioning. We have deeply held values and commitments, often lacking serious rationale. But they still impact our decision making. However, if the issue is personally or organizationally important, rational decision-making is the best route to success.

What you get is how you frame the issue
Most of us intuitively know something about frames. We allude to them when we talk about “thinking outside the box” or “not being on the same page.” A frame is simply a mental structure that simplifies and guides our understanding of complex issues. Our world is too complex for our brains to ever hope to fully process what’s coming at us. Even prior to the information age. If we didn’t use frames, we’d be quickly consumed with trying to make sense of all the data flowing at us.

Most of us pay no attention whatsoever to this automatic mental process. But we can pay a very high price for this much-needed simplicity. It can limit what we see and what we understand. The analogy of a window frame shows us the difficulties. Architects designing a new house choose where to place windows to give us a desired view. But no single window can show us the entire panorama. When we first moved from Colorado and Arizona to Minnesota nearly 40 years ago, my wife and I went nuts about the windows in Minnesota homes. They were very small. We didn’t like what we got from a small window: little light and no perspective. There’s an important lesson in that. Both Governor Dayton and Jennifer Allen are using frames that are far too small for their subject. But few people will recognize that.

Frames and policies
The fact of the matter is few see their frames for thinking unless they’ve had the training to do so. Frames are like stereotypes or mental models. They’re very powerful. With Dayton and Allen, the frame difference is the major cause of the policy difficulties. As long as the legislators are working with those two frames, the public will never hear or even understand the issues. And as I said, that’s good for the Republicans and bad for the Democrats. That’s because the rhetorical world of the older voter is filled with tax issues and largely lacking in any sense of the broader good. So how the hell do you talk about the “broader good?” The Democrats better figure that one out. The Democrats are winning a lot of battles, but losing the one about the broader good. And it’s all about framing.

Frame distortion
Frames guide our thinking in a chaotic world. They can play tricks on our minds. Here, from Russo and Schoemaker, are some of the built-in dangers of frames:

• Frames distort what we see.
• Frames themselves are often hard to see
• Frames appear complete. We don’t even notice that something’s missing.
• Frames are exclusive. It’s hard to look out more than one window at a time.
• Frames are “sticky” and hard to change. We’ve been locked into the same frames for years—with a lot of reinforcement—so it’ll take conscious effort to change them.

Making frame change
About ten years ago my frugal wife decided she needed a new car. Her old Pontiac was dying. She turned the planning and research over to me, so I checked out her frame. Her conclusion was that she wanted a very “secure, safe” car (she taught in the inner city), preferably a four wheel drive, heated front seat and it should be small to move around in traffic and park. Using her frame, my research found that there was only one car that fit the bill: the Audi A4. “But that’s a very expensive car,” she responded. I pointed out that she hadn’t factored cost into her frame and that there was only one car that could give her what she wanted. She agreed that I’d framed the problem correctly, but still . . . . I finally sold it to her on the basis that it was a “Kraut car,” German made. Since she’s half German, with all the analytical precision thereto appertaining, she rolled. She got the Audi—and I was the proud, status-oriented husband of a wife who drove an Audi. She’d framed the issue correctly and as a result she got exactly what she wanted--and needed! (She agreed that as empty-nesters and the kids out of college, money wasn’t an issue. So we took that out of the framing.) I assume you realize that my case for the Audi was both rational and emotional decision making.

Edina Is Not . . . Well . . . Mississippi or Alabama

You have to move fast to keep up with some Minnesota cities, especially up-scale Edina.

In my recent blog on collaboration, I pointed out that competencies are inevitably a response to culture, society and economics. Indeed, the burgeoning emphasis on collaboration is uniquely tied to the evolution of the economy and the knowledge worker.

Now comes the fruit of another cultural shift. Reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the gift was, amusingly, an Easter gift to diversity.

First, the state’s Catholic hierarchy made an ass of itself in front of its own high school students at Minneapolis’ DeLaSalle High School regarding gays, gay families and of all things, adopted kids. The high schoolers raised an uproar with the hierarchy reps, causing the church to back down fast. What the church was trying to do—with only high school seniors present—was gain more votes for anti-gay legislation. Our Catholic fathers seem not to know that the arc of the biblical tradition is toward inclusion. So, the hierarchy probably lost more than it gained, showing the immense gap between the younger generation and old, white men in black robes.

But the more intriguing Easter gift was from the city fathers of Edina, who decided, unanimously, to add still more dates to their no-meetings list. The change only affected 3 of 120 meetings this calendar year. Now the no-meeting list includes the following:

Christian holidays: Christmas, Christmas Eve, Good Friday

Jewish holidays: The evening before and the day of Yom Kippur, the evening before and two days of both Rosh Hashanah and Passover

Islamic holidays: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha

Hindu holidays: Diwali

A priest at the Hindu temple responded that the move is “really awesome. That means American culture is really considerate of other cultures, they try to understand and want them to celebrate. It really helps us at the temple.”

Of course, this will drive the Tea Party nuts, but I suspect there aren’t many of that ilk in Edina.

“Edina” is Minnesota shorthand for lots of money, successful professionals and top public schools. But it has also become, like many East coast and Midwestern suburbs, a mecca (hmmmm--my Islamic reference.) for wealthy professionals, many of whom are Islamic and Indian.

Tolerant Minneapolis and the western suburbs (including Edina) are a case-study in how to change cultural attitudes. There was a time in the first half of the twentieth century when Minneapolis was known as the most anti-semitic city in the country. But the Star Tribune, under the leadership of the Cowles family, changed all that. Not only did they editorialize against anti-semitism, but the family strongly supported Planned Parenthood, editorialized for birth control and public schools, and led in the immense focus upon arts in the Twin Cities. We always enjoyed the arts in New York and Chicago, but we also knew that we’d get just as much exposure in the Twin Cities, especially in drama and music.

A few years ago, I found myself seated on a flight to Chicago beside Joe Dowling, the artistic director of the Guthrie. At the time the Guthrie was raising funds for its new edifice on the Mississippi and I chatted with Dowling about the status of the drive. “You have to remember,” he explained, “that the Guthrie is the most heavily endowed theater in the world.” As a New York theater-goer, that was more than a little shock to my system. But as I thought about it, not much of a surprise.

It continues to amaze me how much a few people can impact a culture for the good--and not reinforce its death-giving values.

7 Behaviors That Keep Women From Getting Ahead

Over the past two years, this blog (published in April, 2010) has been number one in readership, reaping well over 25,000 unique visits. Numerous bloggers have referred to the blog, even plagiarizing the hell out of it (that’s fine with me). It’s also the most commented upon blog with extremely negative and even more extremely positive comments. The commenters engaged in several heated discussions with each other, positioning themselves within their own ideology.

Initially, I responded to some of the comments, but as time went on I realized that the discussion didn’t need my input.

So, I’m recycling it because of its popularity. . . and because of its obvious relevance to the workforce.

It strikes me that I need to explain why a male would write for females so directly. One of the reasons is that more than a quarter of my clients were women, many of whom stated that they wanted to work with a man who understood gender differences. The fact that our three daughters are also professionals plays into my personal interests. Still, as a scholar in the field of organizational and interpersonal communication, gender differences have been a hot topic for years, a topic that has always intrigued me.

You’ll notice that the blog is supported by a significant amount of research. Indeed, many of the topics have been systematically studied by many scholars. Second, I have tried to be as practical as possible, making the recommendations immediately useful.

_______________________

On numerous occasions over the years, I've coached women managers and execs. Recently, while going through my file on influence management, I stumbled on an old article by Mary Ellen Drummond entitled, Seven Things We Do That Keep Us From Getting Ahead, from a now defunct (?) magazine called Women Managers. Although these recommendations don't apply to a few female execs that I've worked with, they certainly apply to a large number. Drummond doesn't mention the basis for her conclusions, but because of my studies in nonverbal research I'm well aware that a number of the recommendations have a research basis. This information seems to go in cycles in business circles, but I've seen a number of recent articles on personal presentation. I'm also aware that the top business schools, including Booth, Kellogg, Harvard and Stanford give time in their program for personal presentation, usually in leadership development programs that focus on interpersonal communication.

I've found that typically, because of their socialization, women are not aware of these issues. The issues surface out of the assumption that business is a man's world, and that if a woman wants to succeed, she'll need to mimic some of the male behaviors. (Although I've seen and read all kinds of responses to that assumption, I recommend a great deal of flexibility in these issues. FYI: I've noticed more than a few men that need help with their business behaviors.)

Since what you don't know can hurt you, here are some things to think about and perhaps get some feedback on.

1. Women do not take up enough physical space. This is not a matter of size, but how you hold yourself when standing. If you expect to be perceived as a powerful person, stand with your feet apart, and perhaps your hands on your hips. Drummond recommends the steeple gesture, placing your hands so that just your fingertips are touching. This forces the palms apart and makes your arms take up more space whether standing or sitting. This is a classic negotiating posture, so watch for it when observing others.

Although Drummond doesn't mention this, it's a well-researched fact that when men and women all sit down at a large table, women take up far less room. Men put papers and books over as much as twice the space as women. I recommend that women spread out on the business table just like the men. Take ownership of a huge area of space. The difference often has a powerful impact on the discussion.

2. Women nod their heads when listening. A man nods his head only to show agreement, while women nod to show they're listening. Plenty of women in executive suites have been schooled to avoid this. Present yourself as a powerful person, not a nice lady. Just last week, I took my wife to see an endocrinologist at the university clinic. Prior to seeing the physician, the nurse took information and was nodding her head, encouraging my wife and me to talk. Then the physician, a nationally known woman walked into the room. The difference was shocking. Though smiling and warm, she was totally in charge from the time the door opened. She asked questions, but didn't nod. She interrupted me a couple times, probing for information. Once I acceded to her authority, the conversation became much more familiar. It was a hilarious experience for this communication scholar, but also a very powerful way for the physician to assert her authority. I had nothing but kudos and trust of her insights by the end of the session. Well done!

3. Women tilt their heads when they talk. Check this out and notice that women tilt their heads when listening and talking, without even knowing it. It is not a power position from which to speak. So keep your head up, chin forward and untilted, and relax your shoulders backward, not hunched tightly forward, when you want to speak. You want others to listen to you.

4. Women introduce themselves too soon. Research shows that no one listens to what's being said in the first 5 to 7 seconds of meeting new people. They're too busy visually checking you out, and they pay little to no attention to what's being said. That's why we forget the names of people we've just met. We weren't listening. So, when first meeting someone, explain what you do, the company you work for, and then, finally your name.

5. Women's voices rise at the ends of sentences. It makes a woman sound like she's asking a question and asking for assent instead of making a statement. There is a geographical component to this. Women from the Upper Midwest are terrible at this. Sometimes I just want to yell at the phone to get them to stop it. My wife, who's from Detroit, has never done that. My daughters? Not in a thousand years. I've seen them roll their eyes at a woman doing this. My middle daughter, in a playful mood, will mock someone doing it. When we moved to Minnesota and she was in the fourth grade, someone asked why she talked like she did--mouth open, and no questioning at the end of sentences. Her response? "Why would I want to talk like you?" Ummmm. Just to set you straight, she has a terrific number of friends, including a large number of Harvard, MIT researchers who think that when it comes to research protocols and animals, she's god.

6. Women fidget. Although I think this is somewhat dated, the research shows that when men enter a conference room, they make 12 major movements. Women make 27. Many of these involve pulling out a chair and sitting down, but then women start adjusting their clothes and jewelry. The more movements you make in business settings, the less powerful you seem to your colleagues. Beware what you do when you enter a room, and keep your movements to a minimum.

7. Women let men finish sentences for them. Fading out at the end of a sentence is more common for women than men, so is being interrupted. You need to complete your sentences and your ideas. So, keep talking, a bit louder and hold up your finger to signal you're not finished. Never, never, never let men get away with interrupting you. On occasion, you can also interrupt right back to make your point. And keep talking. As Drummond says, stick to your guns and your sentences.

These bad habits are all learned. They're not natural. The good habits can also be learned. So women, don't let the men take advantage of you. Frankly, I lose my respect for a woman who lets a man take advantage of her. I raised my daughters to know better! FYI: I was never interested in raising "nice girls." Our objective was to raise intelligent, achieving females who could make some serious contributions to this world. Abrasive candor is a given. I've always taken the comment that my daughters or my wife could be difficult to be a compliment. It was expected.

Photo fm Flickr.com

Passing the Books, But Holding the Oil

I spent a morning hour trying to organize my thinking about Fareed Zakaria’s ground-breaking work, The Post-American World and its direct relation to Sunday’s Tom Friedman’s column, Pass the books. Hold the oil. 

Friedman’s column was eye-catching, well-crafted and exceedingly relevant.  But a quote near the end of the column, by K. R. Sridhar, the founder of the Silicon Valley fuel-cell company, Bloom Energy, stopped me in my tracks:

When you don’t have resources, you become resourceful.

Zakaria makes the point that countries with significant oil resources tend not to diversify and not to create jobs outside the oil industry. The long-term result, of course, is that unemployment in those countries is a terrific problem inevitably resulting in huge inequalities and social unrest. The pragmatic monarchies, like Saudi Arabia, buy off the population with their wealth. That, of course, will eventually come to an end. So rather than oil resources becoming an advantage, they will become an eventual disadvantage.  

Friedman follows Zakaria’s thesis, making it immensely relevant by focusing on two nations that have no significant resources, but became very resourceful: Taiwan and Israel. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) exams test math, science and reading skills of 15 year-olds in 65 countries every two years. And, uniquely, it compares the kids’ results with total earnings on natural resources as a percentage of GDP.  In short, “how well do your high school kids do on math compared with how much oil you pump or how many diamonds you dig?” Obviously, these are correlations not causations. But they are damned significant correlations.

The results indicate a significant negative relationship between money extracted from natural resources and the knowledge and skills of their high school population. Israel and Taiwan, along with several other nations lacking natural resources, but high in educational resources, enjoy a standard living most of the oil-rich countries of Arabia are unable to offer.  That’s why, says Friedman, that the foreign countries with the most companies listed on the Nasdaq are Israel, China/Hong Kong, Taiwan, India, South Korea and Singapore—none of which can live off natural resources. So the CEO of Bloom Energy has got it right. When you don’t have resources, you become resourceful.

The summary is telling:

Among the 34 OECD countries, the U.S. ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 23rd in mathematics.

The U.S. fell particularly short in the share of students achieving the highest level of math performance. Only 2 percent of U.S. students reached the top rung. By comparison, more than 4 percent of students in Canada, Finland, Korea and eight other OECD countries attained that level—as did 11 percent of the Hong Kong students and 27 percent of the Shanghai pupils. (Conversation with Lori Taylor, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas) 

Andreas Schleicher, who oversees the PISA exams says that knowledge and skills have become the global currency of the 21^st century, not natural resources. But, he goes on, there is no central bank that prints this currency. So, Israel and Taiwan are printing a lot of their own currency. It’s great to have oil and gas, because they can buy jobs. But over the long run unless they’re used to build schools and a culture of lifelong learning, they’ll weaken your society. Exactly the point that Zakaria makes. Looks like the good old US has got some work to do.   

Flickr photo: Audubon Images

Quotation of the Week: George Will

I've been waiting months for some intelligent person to comment that being President of the US and being a business CEO are two different animals. But I must confess my surprise to read Republican George Will's column this morning and finding the insight for all to read. And with some clarity.

Today’s Republican contest has become a binary choice between two similarly miscast candidates. Mitt Romney cannot convince voters that he understands the difference between business and politics, between being a CEO and the president. To bring economic rationality to an underperforming economic entity requires understanding a market segment. To bring confidence to a discouraged nation requires celebrating its history and sketching an inspiring destiny this history has presaged. 

Will assumes a lot in his statement. Namely that voters understand the difference between business and politics. Voter credibility is a big leap for me when I'm unconvinced that most journalists understand the distinction, much less the public.

I'm the last person anyone could label a Luddite, but the removal of civics courses from most school systems has left much of the population unaware of political processes. The distinction between president and CEO is a strategic case in point. The differences and demands are made clear by the processes the founding fathers built into the body politic. I'm quite certain that some sort of schooling would be of value to the populace, even in this technological age. Otherwise, politics and government will be demagogued by the media and the irresponsible forever.

A Tour de Force: "Obama Explained," by James Fallows

Just how much power does the presidency really offer? Any president, not just Obama, but Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Reagan? The March issue of the Atlantic’s article on the political, social and economic powers of the presidency is the finest piece of analysis we’ll see in a long time. It continues to amaze me that so many of the expectations about a president, any president, are bogus. Can a president actually create jobs in the short-term? Six months to a year-and-a- half? That’s a completely counterfeit notion from the get-go. Can the president create jobs on a long term basis through policy decisions? You bet your sweet bippy he can.

James Fallows sets about to answer that big set of presidential questions--and does an absolutely masterful job. His article is a superb case of reality deflowering stupid ideals and politics-as-usual. This is as close to civic accuracy as you’re going to see in a long time.

Sobering realities
Take for example, Fallows statement, well into the article, regarding the “sobering realities of the modern White House.”

The sobering realities of the modern White House are: All presidents are unsuited to office, and therefore all presidents fail in certain crucial aspects of the job. All betray their supporters and provoke bitter criticism from their own side at some point in their term. And all are mis-assessed while in office, for reasons that typically depend more on luck and historical accident than on factors within their control.

Maybe that shouldn’t be, or maybe you don’t like that, but them’s the facts, buddy.

Big Surprises
What are the biggest surprises any new president faces? Here’s what one person with extensive nation-level experience said: The biggest surprise for any new president is the strain placed upon the “decision-making muscle,” since the choices that come upon him every day are precisely those the rest of the government has not been able to resolve. The question for someone whose only real executive training has been the management of his campaign is “how quickly that muscle will develop and improve”; as it is developing, the instincts and institutional memory of those around him inevitably have great effect. Obama frequently emphasizes how many troubles he faced as soon as he took office. The real problem, for an inexperienced president, is that he had to make so many big decisions so fast. How tough to get on Wall Street; how hard to push for extra stimulus; how much time to give Congress to mull health-care plans; how much to trust the Republicans to cooperate; how long to delay on energy and environmental plans—these are just some of the choices Obama had to make about domestic affairs.

Faced with tough opposition
What’s the role of the opposition? Fallows goes back to a letter that James H. Rowe, a Harvard –trained lawyer who had been Oliver Wendell Holmes’s last law clerk, and after World War II was a young official at the Bureau of the Budget, wrote to President Harry Truman soon after the midterm elections of 1946. In that election, Republicans gained 55 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate, to take control of Congress. The “simple fact” about most deals with a congressional opposition is that they “just won’t work under the American two-party system.”

How does Fallows read this letter?

And so Rowe offers his recommendation. With legislative ambitions blocked, with many appointments left to languish, with rear-guard battles under way to uphold vetoes and fend off investigation, a president should resort to the only tool that is uniquely his: the ability to speak to all of the public. He should prepare the ground by sounding reasonable and conciliatory, in light of an unquenchable if unrealistic belief that parties should be able to get along. (“Public demand for bipartisan cooperation will probably continue. The realpolitik of the situation requires that there be some gestures toward cooperation.”) Then, with his bona fides established, the president can move into the next election, making a clear case for his side.

Imbibing this article and its spirit is an exceedingly worthwhile experience. You can download the entire Atlantic article here: Obama Explained. It’ll provide a backdrop for the rest of this year—and hopefully, the coming four years of the Obama presidency.

My One Wish for 2012

It’s that time of the year when many review the past, set goals for the next year, and make a few resolutions and wishes. My goals are ongoing, and I have no new resolutions, but I do have one wish—a very important one.

But first, a bit of background. For only the fifth time in US history, we’re facing a momentous choice about the nature of government. Both Republicans and Democrats believe this to be true. In fact, Newt Gingrich recently reached back to the 1860’s saying, “This is the most important election since 1860 because there’s such a dramatic difference between the best food-stamp president in history and the best paycheck candidate.” That’s a completely inaccurate, cheap shot. Obama, however, fully agrees that this election may well be the most significant statement since Barry Goldwater’s run for the presidency. 

Actually, there are four inflection points in American history when the role of government was up for grabs: the revolutionary period, the 1860’s consensus regarding the Civil War, FDR's initiation of the social net in the '30s and the 1960’s attempt by Goldwater Republicans to dismantle the social net. This choice will be the fifth. It reminds us of one important fact: the United States is not a static entity, but primarily an ongoing experiment. 

What drives my wish for 2012 is a series of very concrete interviews last week by Michael Barbaro and Ashley Parker, asking voters about their favorite Republican candidate and why. The interviews revealed a shocking disregard for policy.

Jonathan Gabhart, a 21 year-old college student from Spencer, Iowa, is leaning to Ron Paul, because of the Texas lawmaker’s unpolished speaking style—a “high-pitched, squirrelly voice.  He seems like a real person because of his eccentricities.” 

Andy Schwaegler, a 45-year-old tree farmer from Orford, N.H., is drawn to Mitt Romney because the well-coiffed candidate reminds him of his father, a business executive. “It’s something about the way he carries himself,” Mr. Schwaegler said.

Nancy Weaver, a 60-year-old retiree in Grinnell, Iowa, favors Representative Michele Bachmann because the congresswoman raised 23 foster children. “That’s a huge endeavor for any man or woman,” she said.

“It drives me crazy,” Rose Williams, a retired teacher in Bridgewater, N.H., said of Mr. Romney’s voice. “When he’s on TV or on a commercial, I put it on mute.” 

Dwayne Kriegel, a postal carrier in Grinnell, who is backing Mr. Santorum in the caucus on Tuesday. “He’s passionate about his dedication to family values,” Mr. Kriegel said. “The others say what they think the voters want to hear, while he lives it.” 

Eva Dunn, 60, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Air Force, has no patience for Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah. Her objection: his demeanor in the debates. “He comes across as a preacher, and I just want to take his hands and tie them behind his back because he’s always pleading,” she said.

Again and again, voters pointed to the candidates’ personal lives as a guide to how they would lead the country. Mr. Gingrich’s two divorces, and his admission of adultery, gave pause to a number of people. “You wonder in times if it will affect his judgment,” said Zack Pickard, 36, a software salesman in New Sharon, Iowa. “Are we going to be distracted by his social missteps? It’s a distraction. Your leader should not be distracted.”

Clearly, we are emotional beings and most of our decisions, especially our voting decisions are based upon our gut and the state of our glands. In his new book, Daniel Kahneman emphasizes the emotional nature of our decisions and emphasizes the irrational in our lives. Although most of us think that we are conscious, autonomous authors of our judgments and our choices, the truth is otherwise. A study of voting patterns in precincts of Arizona in 2000 showed that the support for propositions to increase the funding of schools was significantly greater when the polling stations was in a school than when it was in a nearby location. A separate experiment showed that exposing people to images of classrooms and school lockers also increased the tendency of participants to support a school initiative.

Such “priming” has consistently demonstrated troubling effects. Money primed people are also more selfish: they were much less willing to spend time helping another student who pretended to be confused about an experimental task. . . . The general theme of these findings is that the idea of money primes individualism: a reluctance to be involved with others, to depend on others or to accept demands from others. . . . (These findings) suggest that living in a culture that surrounds us with reminders of money may shape our behavior in ways that we do not know about and of which we may not be proud. 

In still other experiments, researchers asked Princeton students to rate pictures of men’s faces on various attributes, including likability and competence. Observers agreed quite well on those ratings. . . . The results of the electoral races to the ratings of competence that Prince students had made, based on brief exposure to photographs and without any political context. In about 70% of the races for senator, congressman, and governor, the election winner was the candidate whose face had earned a higher rating of competence. (This leads me to wonder how Abraham Lincoln would have done in our world.)

In addition to our gut decision making, American history tells us that personality and personal ethics have little impact upon presidential decision making. More than half of our Presidents would never pass the financial ethics tests, much less today’s sexual morality test. It would be terribly shocking to 95% of the American population to realize that when it comes to ethics, and especially sexual ethics or personality characteristics, there is NO significant relationship to the expertise and commitments of all to government policy and national success. Some of our best presidents were what we’d label today as flagrant womanizers, and that includes Jefferson, FDR and Dwight Eisenhower. It's a truism that character, personality and ethics play little role a president's decision making processes.

So I'm primarily concerned with a candidate's policy commitments, especially when it comes to his perspective on the role and nature of government.  

To be specific, if you want an inconsequential government with no social nets and no regulations then vote Republican. If, instead, you prefer a modestly redistributive and regulatory government that the country has relied upon since the New Deal, then be prepared to vote Democratic.  And remember that all the talk about financial austerity is primarily a subversive attempt to ignore the larger issue of the nature of government.

Thus, my number one wish for 2012 is that voters will attempt to set aside their tribal commitments and  base their presidential deicision, at least partially, upon significant—truly significant—policy matters. 

Yeah, I know. My beloved grandmother would respond to my wish with a proverb from her English forebears about the utter futility of wishing and the necessity of taking action: if wishes were horses, beggars will ride. Still, I can make one wish for 2012, can't I?

A Poignant Memorial to Vaclav Havel

With Havel, the message mattered but it was words themselves that penetrated the heart.

                              --Madeleine Albright

Although I regularly read the obituaries of leaders in the New York Times, when I finished Albright’s memorial to Vaclav Havel, “the principled president,” I performed a unique act. I sat in front of my computer glued to her words, tears flowing down my face and clapped. I cannot remember doing such a thing. It was an automatic response, much like the silence followed by an overwhelming ovation after a great musical performance. 

Admittedly, Albright had one of the few, truly magnificent leaders of the past fifty years in her sights. But this memorial focused upon Havel’s principled uniqueness while emphasizing his surprising, earthy, gutsy, poetic humanity. Facing the disintegration of the Soviet Union, he pleads with the Western world to assist the Russians. Albright’s panegyric emphasizes the contradictions in Havel, redefines what it means to be fully human and marked by contradiction. Invited to the US Congress, Havel does not celebrate the Czech Cold War triumph, but pleads for us to reexamine our moral values.

Summarizing the life work of Havel, Albright concludes with a reprise that speaks to us in our fragmented world.

Of the man who hates, Havel wrote, “He is incapable of making a joke, only of bitter ridicule . . . . Only those who can laugh at themselves can laugh authentically.”

As for ideals about governance, he concluded that “We may approach democracy as we would a horizon, and do so in ways that may be better or worse, but it can never be fully attained.” Summing up, he declared himself neither an optimist (“because I am not sure everything ends well,”) nor a pessimist (“because I am not sure everything ends badly”) but, instead, “a realist who carries hope, and hope is the belief that freedom and justice have meaning . . . and that liberty is always worth the trouble.”

Photo: Flickr.com, edition_of_one

More Clarity on Ben Franklin's Two-Bird Economic Theory

My December 7 blog on turkeys and bald eagles received some exceptionally useful insight on the birds—and their characteristics, from one of my readers, a lover of the wild turkey. Franklin, as I wrote, sorted economic philosophy between the turkey and the eagle. 

Franklin’s economic point was that though the eagle was classy looking, it made its living by feeding on the helpless. I related my grandson’s observation that the eagle was a mean bird who stole fish from the gulls in flight. One especially knowledgeable commentator and hunter, Chris Blazer of Montana, pointed out, in agreement, that the eagle was “frequently a scavenger.” 

Franklin argued, incontrast, that the turkey was symbolic of just one instance of the issues of freedom. He believed that people who work hard and play by the rules should have a fair shot at prosperity, and rejected the notion that self-indulgence and genetics should be rewarded. 

He was especially attracted to the wild turkey and proposed the turkey for the national bird, but my description, Mr. Blazer pointed out so well, was quite a bit shy of the mark. I described the turkey with an “easily distracted mind and artificially swelled breast.” Through the lens of the barnyard, the turkey is a hard worker, disciplined, a follower of the rules, and quite willing to give hell to anyone who tries to make trouble. Mr. Blazer pointed out that my description had little relationship to the wild turkey and the strength of Ben Franklin’s analogy. With Blazer’s input, Franklin’s point is far stronger. 

Mr. Blazer happens to be a hunter—and a fan of the wild turkey. He revealed my confusion (and ignorance) between the wild and the domesticated birds. As I wrote, “the domestic turkey is easily distracted and puffed up." But, "the wild turkey (in stark contrast) is a wily bird that eludes predators and hunters readily, manages to thrive in a wide variety of environments and, while not aggressive, defends itself and its own when provoked.” Franklin’s analogy has a lot more strength, insight and contemporary relevance than I first noted. 

As the writer so eloquently put it, “we could be a very different nation if we had followed his advice.”