If the product is flawed, what can we say about the leadership that produced it?
When selling a successful idea, the most capable marketers rarely market the facts, says marketing guru Seth Godin. They present stories that match the worldview of the people in their audience.
Elected officials often take the same approach, using stories and interesting twists to hide the facts, especially when facts are controversial.
Although the majority of Americans are strongly against passing the health care bill, David Axelrod, the President’s closest advisor, said it would be popular once people learned more about it.
“People understand we’re on the doorstep of doing something really historic that will help the American people and strengthen our country for the long run,” Alexrod said on the Sunday morning news shows.
Moreover, he says the commitments to certain senators for their support are a natural part of the legislative process. “Every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their state. That’s the way it has been. That’s the way it will always be.”
What’s most striking about the road to health care reform in 2009? In my view, Congress and the President have too often deviated from the principles of authentic leadership. Bad process, political trickery, and poor leadership produce sub-par solutions.
In defense of all those leading this initiative, people say politicians are not leaders. Well they should be, and this gets to the core of the problem. We should expect elected officials to do what’s best for the country, apply their wisdom, and perhaps even spend the public’s money like their own. With the future of the health care system and the stability of the American economy at stake, ethical leadership needs to be an operational imperative. Instead we find three dirty realities in the promise to craft health care reform.
1. The objective of passing any bill became more important than passing a good bill. It is not clear that the Senate’s bill satisfies the President’s requirements to extend coverage to everyone, reduce the deficit, and reverse the trajectory of the health care cost curve. The Rasmussen Presidential index (those who strongly agree with his performance minus those who the strongly disagree) hit an all-time low today of -21, because Americans do not like the health care bill. They are skeptical of the budget impact, cost calculations based on reductions of Medicare costs and doctors fees (both unlikely to happen) and the delay of benefits until year 4 or 5, while taxes begin in year one.
2. Political ambition trumped the public’s interest. Americans are strongly against a government run health care system. The intensity remains with those who oppose the legislation. Just 19% Strongly Favor the plan while 45% are Strongly Opposed. In spite of the public’s view, the Senate bill now includes an irrevocable provision to establish a government Advisory Committee to ration Medicare and control costs.
3. Chicago-style politics of rewarding friends and punishing enemies rein supreme in the nation’s capital. The party in power drafted its bill in each house of Congress. Despite stories of opposing views among moderate Democrats, a straight party vote is expected in the Senate.
In the end, the majority leader amended the bill in return for a “yes” vote from several of his colleagues. We don’t yet know the true value or extent of the give-aways. We do know that the cost of expanded Medicaid in Massachusetts, Nebraska and Vermont alone is approximately $1.2 billion through 2019. And other goodies are emerging:
For Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of the finance committee and a principal author of the bill, there are benefits for individuals exposed to asbestos years ago, help he has long wanted and can now deliver.
For Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the expansion of Medicaid in his state will be paid forever by the federal government. There are also tighter restrictions on the coverage of abortions.
For Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, there are increased Medicare payments to low volume hospitals, which help three midsize hospitals in his state.
For Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, there is $300 million in Medicaid funding.
I still stand firm. There’s a leadership that creates a revolutionary, positive dynamic in business, in education and government. We need more of this type of leader – now and in the future: leaders who achieve the impossible by throwing out the antiquated ways of doing business. We need these “new” leaders in our corporate boardrooms, in our executive suites, and certainly in the executive and legislative branches of our nation’s government.
Leaders in Washington need to put the country’s interests first – above their personal agendas and ambitions. We need authentic leaders who reveal the facts, the truth, plain and simple, without deception and spin. This is the approach that must and will emerge. Unfortunately, this wasn’t the time.
