Reblog from American’s for Financial Reform: Heather Booth: Beware Frank Luntz’s Lies

AFR Director Heather Booth has a new column on the Huffinton Post exposing Frank Luntz’s lies about financial reform.  Here’s an excerpt from her post:

Seen this ad from the “Committee for Truth in Politics”? If the name weren’t comical enough, the visuals are. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the message seriously. The claim that financial regulatory reform is a $4 trillion bank bailout doesn’t really resemble any truth, as Factcheck.org explains. Yet we know this is just the beginning of what we’ll see and hear as the weeks roll on for the push for real financial regulatory reform. And where did these conservatives get the idea to say black is white and up is down? Frank Luntz.

Frank Luntz, pollster to the right wing and Wall Street agenda, has written a 17-page memo on how to talk about financial reform in order to destroy it. This is the same Luntz whose health insurance reform talking points – on how to best stir up fear and confusion in the American people to derail reform and protect insurance industry profits – showed up across conservative websites and in the mouths of lawmakers. So it shouldn’t be surprising that he’s at it again. After all, his client list is a who’s who of the corporate interests who helped to create the crisis, including Merrill Lynch and Bear Sterns.

When the Frank Luntz Memo wasn’t making me laugh with its absurdity, I was outraged that he uses 1984 George Orwellian advice to call good, bad; to say the solution is the problem. It’s this kind of thinking that inspired belief in the “death panels” that were a fabrication in the health care debate. And it is dangerous because he may have enough money to promote it again and again — so that it may sound real.

Penn State “Climategate” scientist cleared of falsifying data: Three of four charges are dropped, including one claiming he destroyed e-mail; the investigating committee decides it isn’t competent to assess the fourth and punts to a different committee.

Eated: The FDIC closed six banks Friday, bringing the total for the month to 15. Six was the total for the month of January a year ago.

A cautionary note about the strong 4th quarter of GDP: Never, in 50+ years’ worth of data, has a quarter’s GDP growth of 5.7% coincided with a drop in private hours worked (-0.5%). Not sure what that means, but given that we know that productivity growth right now is being driven by layoffs, not capital investment or technological advances, and that 90% of that GDP growth was attributable to stimulus spending only, something’s fishy here.

Lessons from the AIG meltdown from one bureaucrat who sat at the table: I suspect that his conclusions are good because of, not in spite of, the fact that he worked for a state and not the feds.

Contributing factors vs. “but for” factors: Barry Ritholtz divides contributing factors from “but for” factors in deciding how much blame to apportion where for the economic crisis. What’s a “but for” factor? But for X, the crisis wouldn’t have happened. His three major but-for factors? “Ultra-low [interest] rates; unregulated, non-bank subprime lenders; ratings agencies slapping AAA on junk paper.” What about Fannie and Freddie? Contributors, yes, but not but-fors because they arrived so late to the subprime game.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan carves the president a well-deserved new one. Perhaps he hasn’t heard what happened to Ashley Bancroft when she did the same to his predecessor. Who’s she, you ask? Indeed.

If the Democrats had the brains God gave a billy goat, this wouldn’t be happening, but Republican pollster Frank Luntz has laid out a strategy for Republicans to use in fighting financial reform, and I’m pretty sure that because of previous Democratic inaction, Luntz’s strategy will work.

David Rosenberg (via Zero Hedge) says this is all far from over: “We ran some simulations to see what would have happened in 2009 without all the massive amounts of fiscal and monetary stimulus. Instead of real GDP contracting 2.4% for all of 2009, it would have been close to a 4.0% decline. And, as for the last two ‘positive quarters’ — well, Q3 would have been -1.0% QoQ [quarter over quarter] at an annual rate and -1.5% for Q4 (as opposed to the +5.7% annualized print). Still no sign of organic private sector growth and here we have the Fed discussing exit strategies and the Obama team about to soak it to the rich (for anyone who makes over $250k). This is what is otherwise known as a ‘low quality’ recovery.” On the bright side, at least he puts paid to all this “The stimulus didn’t help!” nonsense.

James Fallows explains how circumstances now prevent the traditional conception of bipartisanship from functioning in American politics (at least in Congress). I understand all this — quite well, in fact. Indeed, millions and millions of ordinary Americans understand all this probably as well as Fallows does. The question is: Why is it that so many of the people whose job it is to understand this — David Broder, Chris Matthews, Maura Liaason, and I could go on and on and on — do not understand this? Relatedly, because they do not understand this, why do they still have jobs? Digby gets it: “Can anyone argue that the village just sees all electoral losses as a result of the losing party failing to be “centrist” and “bipartisan” enough?  It doesn’t matter what  the real factors are that drove the electorate.”

Way-cool animated model of the solar system: Go here for hours of family fun!

http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2010/02/03/obamas-permanent-bailout-fund/

Posted by Brian Darling

Wednesday, February 3rd at 4:00AM EST

Frank Luntz has created a firestorm with the release of a document “The Language of Financial Reform” where he outlines messaging points about the financial reform ideas pending before Congress.  The left is in a fury over this memo, yet the memo seems to correctly allege that the financial reform measures pending before Congress contain a permanent bailout authority and fund for the federal government.  A source in the Senate tell me that allegations of a permanent bailout fund in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation are “largely correct.”

Sam Stein of the Huffington Post writes:

In a 17-page memo titled, “The Language of Financial Reform,” Luntz urged opponents of reform to frame the final product as filled with bank bailouts, lobbyist loopholes, and additional layers of complicated government bureaucracy.

The American people, and Tea Party participants in particular, are mad about politicians bailing out Wall Street, AIG (in addition to a potential coverup of information relating to that bailout), car companies and using TARP monies as a means to set up a permanent authority for the federal government to engage in crony captitalism.  If Luntz’s allegations are true, then he should be lauded by those who believe that the last thing the federal government should do is establish a permanent authority for the federal government to bail out failing firms.  Critics of Luntz are having a hard time arguing that the legislation pending before Congress does not set up a mechanism for the federal government to bailout and sieze institutions that they deem to be threats to the economy.

Elite politicians ignored the American people and are still trying to pass ObamaCare.  They are not listening to the American people and these elites are contemptuous of those who distrust the federal government as CEO of Wall Street firms.  The American people need to look critically at the Luntz memo to see if he is correct and if it is true that this legislation is granting the federal government the right to bailout and take over banks and other financial institutions with no input from the average American.  I wrote a piece for the web site Big Government where I argued that Congress was creating a Big Brother for Wall Street on November 14, 2009 based on a Senate discussion draft  of the financial reform bill.  That draft contained langauge that resembled permanent bailout authority for the federal government.  

The discussion draft “prevents excessively large or complex financial institutions from bringing down the economy” by “creating a safe way to shut them down.”  They create a “Agency for Financial Stability” to be government entity to replace the free market forces.  If these banks fail, they will avoid a bankruptcy proceeding, like any other business, and their creditors and trading partners will be bailed out by the federal government.  If you liked the Bailout of Wall Street, then you will love this legislation because it makes permanent a mechanism to place these private entities into a federal receivership (government control) then bail out the people doing business with them under the promise of the cost “ultimately be charged to financial firms.”  A senior Senate staffer on financial service issues tells Big Government that this provision “treats financial companies different from everybody else – everybody else has to go to bankruptcy.”

On December 11, 2009, the House passed Congressman Barney Frank’s (D-MA) bill (H.R. 4173) on a 223-202 vote.  The 1705 page bill has language in Section 1109 titled “Emergency Financial Stabilization.”  The below langauge that has passed the House enables a “Financial Services Oversight Council,” after certification by the Secretary of Treasury and the President, to create a widely available bailout out program.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Upon the written determination of the Council that a liquidity event exists that could destabilize the financial system (which determination shall be made upon a vote of not less than two-thirds of the members of the Council then serving) and with the written consent of the Secretary of the Treasury (after certification by the President that an emergency exists), the Corporation may create a widely-available program designed to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on systemic economic conditions or financial stability by guaranteeing obligations of solvent insured depository institutions or solvent depository institution holding companies (including any affiliates thereof), if necessary to prevent systemic financial instability during times of severe economic distress, except that a guarantee of obligations under this section may not include provision of equity in any form.

Luntz makes the claim that the bill contains a permanent bailout fund for Wall Street.  The above language seems to validate that concern.  He further argues that the taxpayers may be on the hook for $4 trillion in bailout liabilities.  Remember that President George W. Bush’s bailout, on paper, was a mere $700 billion, yet this legislation may put taxpayers on the hook for $4 trillion.  That number is more that President Obama’s whole budget for Fiscal Year 2011 submitted to Congress this week.

Supporters of the new bailout authority may want to investigate Luntz’s claims to see if the taxpayers are truly on the hook for more bailout monies.  These supporters should be able to justify $4 trillion in new authority and how the federal government can protect the taxpayer from government officials bailing out friends and former employers.  I can’t imagine that the American people will be happy that this Congress and the Obama Administration are standing on the shoulders of Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to create a permanent authority for bailouts.  Senator John Thune (R-SD) has been pushing legislation to end the Troubled Assets Relief Program at a time when others in Congress want to make bailouts permanent.

According to Luntz 71% of Americans are less likely to vote for politicians who support bailouts.  According to David Reilly of Bloomberg, the financial regulatory bill contains many objectionable items including the $4 trillion in new bailout authority.   Frank Luntz may be working at the behest of paying clients, yet none of his detractors can refute the claim the different versions of this legislation, at the core, sets up a permanent bailout fund for financial firms at a time when unemployment is at 10% and the American taxpayer does not feel like the federal government should be using tax dollars to protect bad decision making on Wall Street.

.AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink { height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; } .AOLWebSuite a {color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer} .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig {cursor: default}

Dr. Frank Luntz is a communications expert whom you have probably seen on television.  He is known for his “Instant Response” focus group technique.  He often takes a group of people and has them watch a major speech or debate and then interviews them to understand why they were emotionally moved at certain points in the speech or by the actions of the speaker.  Luntz also does polling and research for major corporations about what motivates people.  In his latest book, What Americans Really Want … Really, he says that the “five lifestyle attributes that really matter” are:

(1) more money;

(2) fewer hassles:

(3) more time;

(4) more choices and

(5) no worries.

More discussion on this subject in my Mississippi Business Journal column.

You may not know a lot about Frank Luntz, except that he’s called in regularly on FOX news as a political contributor and pollster. However, recently leaked memos reveal he actually has a lot to do in his spare time.

He began by urging Republicans to defeat finanicial-political reforms by using a few tricks. Lying, cheating, and fear mongering. 

The American people are tired of add-ons, earmarks, and backroom deals — but they are mad as hell at ‘lobbyist loopholes,’” Luntz wrote. “Why were pawnbrokers exempted?” he added, as a prospective question that skeptical lawmakers should ask. “What about car dealers?”Well, it turns out, we already know why the House of Representatives added an exemption for car dealers to its financial reform legislation — a Republican lawmaker wanted it.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Calif.), who has received more than $233,000 in campaign donations from the automobile industry, collects rent from his former automobile colleagues and is a former Saab dealer, secured an amendment in the bill that exempted car dealers from a newly created consumer financial agency. He did so by getting his GOP colleagues and freshmen Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee to support the measure. And then, when the amendment was added, he voted against the final product. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/02/republican-lawmaker-alrea_n_445834.html

But it’s quite more than that, a look at his client list from thinkprogress.org reveals just who’s special interests he’s looking out for. It’s certainly not the American people.  And if you want to discredit these findings head over to his website and check out his clients for yourself. A fair and balanced FOX commentator? I think not.

First, it was “NO!” to health care reform. Now it’s “NO!” to financial reform.

Meet Frank Luntz, professional word-twister. He’s the man that feeds Republican lawmakers and conservative evangelists the imaginative and fascinating rhetoric designed to kill anything and everything the Obama administration proposes. Mr. Luntz is a political strategist – ok, that’s an understatement – he’s the High Priest of right-wing conspiracy hype, the guy that Fox News and people like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck turn to when they need some rancid oats to feed their flock .

Here we have another “smoking memo” . . . a behind-the-scenes look at how politics happens in the GOP.  In the memo, he advises the Republican Party (and provides specific talking points) to intentionally misrepresent facts in favor of hype and hysteria, designed to deceive our citizenry in order to secure a political win. It’s ugly, it’s ruthless, it’s politics in America.

If you’ve got a valid viewpoint, why not engage in an honest, intelligent debate? Why the need for this gamesmanship? The reason, of course, is because it works. It works better than anything else out there. It works because, as a nation of voters, we’ve become too stupid and lazy to think through these things for ourselves.

It makes me sick to my stomach, and deeply concerned about the country my kids will inherit.

Years ago, the minister in our church was giving a message on faith. As she embellished on the “evidence-of-things-not-seen” theme, she also spoke about “false evidence appearing real.” I find myself reflecting on those four words nearly every day.

As our 44^th President enters his second year in office, my thoughts go back to his campaign. I, like he, am a pragmatist. As soaring as his rhetoric is, and his ability to deliver that rhetoric unmatched in my lifetime, I (like he) knew once in the Oval Office, his hopes for our country would be attacked ruthlessly everyday. It is always the case, especially with Democratic Presidents. As a rule, they usually want to improve our country’s social structure, which is an anathema to many who would like nothing better than to go back to the “Roaring Twenties.” Our President’s desire to bring people together to solve the nation’s problems continues to be met with staunch opposition, not because his ideas are wrong, but because his political opposition wants him to fail.

Since there is no rational reason for attacking his desire to make our country better, lying becomes the only course of action.

But lies alone won’t work. They must be worded correctly and marketed to the lowest intellectual common denominator, using words that appeal to peoples’ emotions and ignoring facts where necessary.

In other words, create false evidence that appears real.

A consultation with your doctor once every five years about end-of-life choices is labeled “death panel.” One of the twenty-one choices in a health insurance exchange managed exactly like the Medicare reimbursement program is the “government take-over of our entire healthcare system.”

Loaning money to the auto industry (something we’ve done more than once in the last few decades) is the government “now in the business of building cars.”

Not only are these statements false, but they are designed to invoke fear. Once fear is implanted, people gravitate to whoever is feeding them this “evidence.”  Yelling “fire” in a theatre may be wrong and even illegal, but once you hear someone shout it, you’re first inclination is to heed the warning, not investigate its truthfulness.

Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster and author of “Words That Work,” describes Americans as “…on the whole, ill-read, provincial, sullen and frightened.” He says they are, “… susceptible to mere rhetoric and responsive to arguably bogus appeals,” “…no matter what the facts.” I wish I could disagree entirely, but unfortunately, there is some truth to his statements.

However, I do believe Americans are slowly waking up. Politicians’ tactics, as they try to “crush” their opponents and further their personal agendas just to get elected and re-elected, are becoming transparent. With microphones and cameras everywhere, and most members of congress technologically challenged in this “information age,” many still speak and act indiscriminately, seemingly unaware of this new environment.

Can the day when John Boehner reveals his alcoholism, Pat Robertson reveals his true colors – which are anything but Christian – and media pundits’ blather becomes insignificant, be far off? I don’t think so. If the so-called awesome power of Rush Limbaugh, the 700 Club and FOX News can’t keep a man named Barack Hussein Obama from becoming President of the United States, we’re headed in the right direction.

It’s becoming more difficult to make False Evidence Appear Real.

Amen to that!

Sincerely,

www.MichaelKontras.com

At the New Republic, Michelle Cottle reviews Frank Luntz’s, “What Americans Really Want…Really: The Truth About Our Hopes, Dreams, and Fears“, and pretty much nails down the entire Luntz shtick. Luntz it a pollster who made/makes his fame driving the GOP message. He’s had very real successes to point to, but I’d argue those successes stemmed more from creating a single message that party leaders force-fed down the ranks and enforced message discipline on than the content of the message itself. Luntz works in banalities that would shame Chance the gardener/Chauncey Gardiner.

For Luntz, of course, these answers are jewels that provide a window into man’s true soul. But Luntz’s analysis of the data is awash in revelations most generously described as unstartling. Do we really need Frank Luntz and his methodologies to tell us that moms do most of the food shopping in your average American household?  That in recent years there has been a rise in the popularity of organic food?  That younger employees don’t have the same sense of company loyalty as did earlier generations?  And how about this paradigm-shattering observation: “Blackberrys improve the speed of communication, but the devices don’t necessarily improve the quality of communication.” (The helpful italics are his.) Thumbing through Luntz’s dissection of our hopes and dreams, the exclamation that leaps to mind most often isn’t “Aha!” so much as “Well, duh!”

Cap and trade supporters–including the President of the United States–are taking Republican pollster Frank Luntz’ rhetorical advice to heart. 

Speaking last week at the National Press Club, Luntz appeared with Environmental Defense Fund’s Fred Krupp and unveiled polling results showing Americans aren’t responding well to phrases like cap and trade or green jobs.

In his State of the Union Address (SOTU), President Obama didn’t mention the words cap and trade, carbon, greenhouse gas, or green jobs, but he did tell Wednesday night’s joint session of Congress that part of his program to create jobs involves energy.  

By the way,  the new name for cap and trade is a “comprehensive climate and energy bill with incentives.” 

Next, we need to encourage American innovation.  Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history — an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.  And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy.  You can see the results of last year’s investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.   It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development.   It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.   And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. 

I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.  And this year I’m eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. 

I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy.  I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here’s the thing — even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation. 

Cap and trade supporters National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) issued a news release backing the president’s call for legislation without any references to cap and trade, carbon, or greenhouse gas.   

But NRDC and a host of other environmental groups backing cap and trade are now calling for a comprehensive energy bill with a carbon limit.  In their letter to the Senate, the groups indicate their oppositon to an “energy only” bill.   That letter does not express support for nuclear energy or offshore energy exploration, either.

One of the most surprising elements of the president’s speech involved his call for doubling U.S. exports.

Third, we need to export more of our goods.   Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America.   So tonight, we set a new goal:  We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.  To help meet this goal, we’re launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. 

We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are.  If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. 

Here, here Mr. President.   Let’s start by ratifying each of the pending free trade agreements – Columbia, Panama, and South Korea – before the end of the year.   The Columbia FTA was signed Nov. 22, 2006.   Panama FTA was signed July 11, 2007.   South Korea FTA was signed June 30, 2007.

Just went through  ‘Words That Work’ by Dr Frank Luntz and thought I’d pass along the guts of it by way of executive summary

1. Simplicity: use small words. The more simply an idea is presented, the easier it is to understand – and, therefore, the more credible it will be.

2. Brevity: use short sentences. This is less about self-restraint than it is a matter of finding exactly the right piece of the language jigsaw puzzle to fit the precise space you’re trying to fill.

3. Credibility is as important as philosophy. If your words lack sincerity, if they contradict accepted facts, circumstances or perceptions, they will lack impact. Tell people who you are or what you do. Then be that person, and do what you have said you would do.

4. Consistency matters. Repetition. Repetition. Repetition. Remember, you may be making yourself sick by saying the same exact thing for the umpteenth time, but many in your audience will be hearing it for the first time.
5But offer something new. If something doesn’t shock us or bores us, we move on to something else. If what you say generates an ‘I didn’t know that’ response, you have succeeded.

6. Sound and texture matter. The sounds and textures of words should be just as memorable as the words themselves. The rhythm of language is in itself musical.

7. Speak aspirationally. Messages need to say what people want to hear, to touch people at the most fundamental, primal level, by speaking to their deepest hopes, fears and dreams. The best speeches make idealists of us all.

8. Visualise. Paint a vivid picture. Take M&M’s: ‘Melts in your mouth, not in your hand’. The slogans we remember for a lifetime almost always have a strong visual component, something we can see and almost feel.

9. Ask a question. A customer complaining to the shop manager that her meat has too much fat in it is less effective than if she asked: ‘Does this look lean to you?’. Similarly, asking ‘What would you do if you were in my shoes?’, puts direct pressure on the recipient of your complaint to see things your way. Making a statement in the form of a rhetorical question makes the reaction personal.

10. Provide context. You have to give people the ‘why’ of a message before you tell them the ‘therefore’ and the ‘so that’. Some people call this framing. I prefer the word context, because it better explains why a particular message matters.

It’s the political equivalent of the Hail Mary pass.

The  man Republicans often look to for the messages to help sell their policies showed up last week at the National Press Club with the Environmental Defense Fund–of all groups–with new poll results designed to help climate change advocates breathe new life into the  stagnant issue.

Pollster and political communications expert Frank Luntz, who coined the phrase “death tax” in the battle to repeal the estate tax, has come up several phrases to help EDF and other climate change legislation supporters overcome a skeptical public and an even more skeptical U.S. Senate.   

A blog posting in the New Republic outlines Luntz’ recommendations.   As far as the public is concerned, Luntz says the least important component about climate change is the term “climate change.”

Luntz insists that Americans would support a cap on carbon emissions—80 percent of Dems, but also 43 percent of Republicans he surveyed are either definitely or pretty sure climate change is a problem that’s caused in part by humans. But he doesn’t believe cap-and-trade can pass as long as “it’s called ‘cap-and-trade,’ and all the messaging that’s been used against it. The title has become so demonized that they’ve got to come up with a new name.”

“Cleaner, safer, healthier” is more effective than ’sustainability,” Luntz said.      

The opinion research was done in October and November — before Copenhagen (and probably before Climate Gate).

Luntz found that nuclear energy is increasingly popular with the electorate by a better than 3 to 1 ratio.  Only 19 percent are hostile to it and 64 percent of the public favors nuclear energy.    According to Luntz, people like nuclear because it’s:

• American, which matters to them
• It’s more efficient
• No carbon emissions

In the news conference, Luntz said environmentalists are “horrible communicators because they so desperately want everyone to agree with them so they preach rather than educate.”

Illinois Farm Bureau strongly opposes cap and trade legislation.  Not only would it put America at a competitive disadvantage and do nothing to change the climate, it would shortchange the energy needs of our economy, increase the cost of energy for farmers and consumers, kill jobs, and create incentives for farmers to grow trees rather than food for a growing world population.

I recently presented my synopsis of the Frank Luntz book, What Americans Really Want… Really, and read this quote from the book:

To be successful, you have to be willing to set aside what you know, even if it took you a lifetime to learn it. You have to listen, constantly, to a cacophony of information and learn to synthesize the bits and bytes that will help your business grow today, so you can prepare for and prosper in the future. That’s the mission of this text.

That launched us into a discussion of change, a regular discussion topic for anyone in business.  One of the participants said this:  “I think we should simply realize that any time ever spent in discussing whether or not we like a specific change is wasted time.  Because the change is already upon us, and to discuss whether or not we like it is truly wasted time.’’

That’s it in a nutshell.  You can’t roll back change, you can’t stop change, you can’t change change – change is upon us.  Accept it.  Look for the next one that is certainly on its way.  And never waste a minute of valuable discussion time on whether or not you/we like it.  Because no matter how much you don’t like it, you can’t roll it back.

Now – if only I could actually follow this advice!

Washington can take this advice from the Washington Post:

If there is a lesson in the Massachusetts vote, it is this: pass a bill. The nation needs reform. Democrats need an accomplishment. And Democratic activists and voters need a new cause: fixing reform, not abandoning it.

Or this advice from the voters:

If it’s about just passing a bill and showing an accomplishment, even if it’s wrong and goes contrary to what the American people want, then by all means do it. But buff up your resumes because you will be looking for jobs after November.

How many more elections do you need to watch before you hear the voice of the people? They spoke very clearly and very loudly in Massachusetts. We don’t want this health care bill. We don’t want anything crammed down our throats. We don’t believe that you know what’s best for us. And we are sure sick of how you are wrecklessly spending money you don’t even have.

If democratic activists need a new cause, how about this one: REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU AND LISTEN TO WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!

I’m speaking at the Nonprofit Organizations Institute for the University of Texas School of Law Continuing Legal Education. (No, I am not an attorney).  My assignment: American Wants and Identities:  Thoughts for the Corporate and Nonprofit Sectors. I am pulling together key thoughts from two books,

Mark Penn, author of Microtrends

Microtrends:  The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes by Mark J. Penn and What Americans REALLY WANT…REALLY: The Truth about our Hopes, Dreams, and Fears by Frank Luntz.  Both Penn and Luntz are pollsters/political strategists, on opposite ends of the political spectrum – Luntz is Republican, a frequent contributor to Fox News, and Penn worked on the Hillary Clinton Presidential campaign, and coined the phrase “soccer moms.”  They have both generated controversy, but they both genuinely have their fingers on the pulse of “what Americans want” and “what Americans are like.”

Frank Luntz, author of What Americans Really Want, Really

And what we are like is this:  we are segmenting into narrower and narrower groupings.  We are all, in one way or another, (to borrow from Seth Godin) seeking to “find our tribe.” Here’s a key quote from the Penn book:

All these people out there living a more single, independent life are slivering America into hundreds of small niches.   (The number of households in America has exploded, even though population growth has slowed dramatically).

This book is about the niching of America.  How there is no One America anymore, or Two, or Three, or Eight.  In fact, there are hundreds of Americas, hundreds of new niches made up of people drawn together by common interests.

I have added my own conclusions at the end of this amalgamated presentation.  I arrived at these six as I re-immersed myself into these books.  Here they are:

1)  People are getting together – in many more ways – than ever before. And if you don’t make room for “me,” you lose “me.”  And you have to “make room for me” on “my terms,” not “your terms.”
2)  People want a life with no hassles – in their tribe, in their work life, in any part of their life. No hassles.  None!  Not any hassles!  People don’t want hassles!  And groups/tribes have to make sure that such groups are hassle-free.

• all jobs are customer service jobs; all organizations are customer service organizations; all customer service is about no hassles!  PEOPLE DO NOT WANT ANY HASSLES!

3)   The search for meaning in work is ongoing – and important. But meaning includes belonging, the ability to keep growing, the embrace of challenge, and the awareness that helping people really does bring meaning.
4)  The segmenting will continue, and become ever more refined/ever more “micro.” It will shape where we work, where we live, the people we hang out with – and what we do with our spare time, our spare money, our passion, and our “cause” energy.
5)  People who are alike will find each other – and technology will accelerate this, probably provide the primary means for the segmenting of the groups/teams/tribes.  And the “are alike” differentiators will become increasingly “micro.”
6)  Our tribes will change. And loyalty – to a company, to a job, to a cause, to any tribe – can be very fleeting.  Loyalty has to be earned, and re-earned, over and over again.

These are my six.  You might have others.  But I think these capture our era pretty well.

———–

You can purchase my synopsis of the Penn book, Microtrends, with audio + handout, from our companion web site 15minutebusinessbooks.com.  The Luntz synopsis should be available at the same site soon.

It’s tough for college graduates out there, thus it is tough for current college students.  What should today’s student major in?  In today’s NY Times, one of the top e-mailed articles wrestles with this question: CAREER U. — Making College ‘Relevant’ by Kate Zerniuke.

After discussing the decline of/loss of philosophy majors, and the ascendancy of business majors, here is a key excerpt:

There’s evidence, though, that employers also don’t want students specializing too soon. The Association of American Colleges and Universities recently asked employers who hire at least 25 percent of their workforce from two- or four-year colleges what they want institutions to teach. The answers did not suggest a narrow focus. Instead, 89 percent said they wanted more emphasis on “the ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing,” 81 percent asked for better “critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills” and 70 percent were looking for “the ability to innovate and be creative.”
“It’s not about what you should major in, but that no matter what you major in, you need good writing skills and good speaking skills,” says Debra Humphreys, a vice president at the association.

Here’s my opinion.  I understand that people need jobs, and that the jobs are tougher to get with a humanities/philosophy/English degree.  But I have heard my share of mediocre presentations, read my share of mediocre business writings, and seen my share of ethical lapses.  The humanities matter.  And I think that business will rediscover a need for such thinking/training.  And for those who did not take enough of such subjects, they have some remedial work to do.  And, yes, I know that it is tough to do this with a “catch-up” approach.  (I wrote about this earlier, based on an article from Harper’s: Dehumanized — A Cause for Alarm in Education, and in the World of Business Books).

You can’t read a book or two to make up for lost years of foundational learning.  But, let’s use the paragraph above as providing to set an agenda for some reading in 2010.  Here are some suggestions:

If you need to work on:	Then you might want to read:
“the ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing,”	Words that Work by Frank Luntz; and Made to Stick by Chip Heath and Dan Heath
“critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills”	Big Think Strategy: How to Leverage Bold Ideas and Leave Small Thinking Behind by Bernd H. Schmitt; and The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking by Roger L. Martin.
“the ability to innovate and be creative.”	The Creative Habit:  Learn It and Use It for Life by Twyla Tharp and The Art of Innovation (Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, America’s Leading Design Firm) by Tom Kelley

This is a subject worth following.

Frank Luntz

1. What do I need to know?
2. Why do I need to know it?
3. Where can I obtain it?
4. How can I validate it?
5. With whom should I share it?
6. How can this information be put to most effective and productive use?

One strategy when reading this book is to focus on the questions posed that are of great relevance to one’s specific needs, interests, and objectives. For example, which should be the procedures for automated customer service? Luntz suggests three:

1. Three rings, max. People expect the phone to be picked up just after the third ring. That’s the standard set by home answering machines and cell phone voice mail, so people are conditioned to it.

2. Two people, max. Even more irritating than waiting for the initial telephone is being passed from one representative to another. A company is allowed only one transfer.

3. Americans, please. People are immediately suspicious when they hear a foreign accent. To them, it’s a sign that the help desk has been outsourced to God-knows-where and it immediately destroys our confidence that the problem will be addressed and resolved.

* * *

Re Luntz’s third guideline, my own opinion is that the nationality of a customer service representative is much less important than are the person’s fluency in English, competence, and eagerness to provide assistance.