Larry D. Lauer

Each week I try to watch Fareed Zakaria on CNN’s GPS: Global Public Square. Over time, I find that his topics and guests achieve a level of context on complex foreign policy issues rarely found on television. Two guests on a recent program have had me thinking ever since. Their topic was simply…”making choices.”

Kent Greenfield is the author of The Myth of Choice, and Sheena Iyergar is the author of The Art of Choosing. A common theme that emerged in their conversation was that people actually prefer limited choices. While conventional wisdom might be that we all have come to prefer endless choices, Greenfield and Iyergar presented evidence that too many choices can confuse and cause many of us to make no choice at all.

Actual behavior observation revealed that when choices were limited many consumers were much more likely to act. For example, in a supermarket when a few brand choices were arranged and given a separate location, actual purchases increased. When there were too many choices confusion increased to where the ability to act was disrupted.

Insights like this always seem to apply to other situations. For example, I found myself actually relating this one to our local World Affairs Council schedule of events. Email notices promoting endless programs and events stream my way almost every day. As a result I am finding making choices very difficult. In the days when there were fewer choices I must admit each one seemed more compelling.

Also, I am now wondering to what degree this insight about choice applies to  communicating U.S. foreign policy. Are there just too many different message choices  flowing from too many places in government for any central idea, or objective, to make it through the clutter?  Or worse, can communicating more messages, even when they are positive, actually add to clutter and confusion?

Maybe significantly limiting the receiver’s choices of message points would have a better chance of breaking through this clutter. In other words, while constant 24/7 breaking news presenting opposing points of view each day almost insures widespread  confusion, should communication from the state department be simply one regularly repeated statement of our objective for each situation. And should that statement  be coordinated so all segments of government are consistently making the same one?

I certainly understand that focusing one simple message on each crisis situation will not achieve total world understanding. But would not such a coordinated effort at least limit negative perceptions a little, and in so doing enhance our credibility with some local and other opinion leaders who might then help us spread the word?

Read Full Post »

Each fall TCU students identify a common reading for the entire university community. The idea is that everyone will read it and discussions will take place in classes and other groups. This year’s choice is about a Haitian family.

Brother I’m Dying, by Edwidge Danticate, is a story of two brothers and a daughter’s love of them both. It is also a story about the split between family members still struggling in Haiti, and those that have come to the U.S. for greater opportunity.

Underlying this emotion filled family story is also an account of a confused up and down relationship between the two countries.

Haiti’s story is one of a steady succession of unsuccessful leaders. Many were ruthless. And mixed in with this sometimes violent turmoil has been weather events that literally devastated cities, raped the countryside, and wrecked the economy.

For a time after 1915 the U.S. became occupiers. At other times U.S. administrations varied in levels of interest and types of response. As a consequence, many Haitians developed negative attitudes about America. But others still dreamed of immigrating to the US for a better life. Many of these eventually became citizens, but now live with confused personal identities and families emotionally divided between the U.S. and their homeland.

This book leaves the reader thinking: Is it not time that we in the U.S. finally send out a clear message about what Haiti ultimately means to us? Do we share a common ideology? Is there a national security concern? Is it an important trading partner? Or do we just continue to help clean it up when it comes apart?

We are a nation of immigrants, and are proud of that fact. Yet we have prison-like holding centers for thousands of good family people waiting for visa and entry decisions. Indeed, the situation is complex.  But can’t we somehow find a simple policy message that gives guidance to practical solutions?

Read Brother I’m Dying and you will come to a deeper understanding of the human  consequences of a confused foreign policy, and the devastating impact it can have on  traditional American family values.

Read Full Post »

Could the recent controversial bill in the Texas legislature to curb abortion have come to a more amiable resolution? To do so would have required first establishing its “context” as a foundation for negotiation, and then for all parties to negotiate in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

1. The bill was written by a legislator who argued that his main concern is to protect the health of pregnant mothers. He is also a physician, which gives some credibility to his claim. However, critics see it as a clever way to politically advance the right-to-life cause and eventually eliminate abortions completely. The bill eliminates abortions after 20 weeks, and effectively closes all but very few clinics across the state.  Is there a way the goal of better protecting women’s health could be advanced while keeping a reasonable number of these clinics open?

2. The bill was also supported by people with a personal and/or religious commitment that the right to life is universal and the government simply must protect it. Is it feasible to revisit the separation of church and state principle on which this country was founded, and thereby seek some collaborative way forward?

3. The critics of the bill argue that a woman’s personal health is her private business and she should have the right to make her most private decisions on her own. The government has no right, they argue, to be making these most personal decisions for individuals. On this point, liberal thinkers seem to agree with the typical conservative position that governments should stay out of our personal lives. So is it possible to take government out of this discussion and find new more direct ways for those against abortion to make their case directly to the people.

In other words, can providing context on an issue like this make it possible to have a more intelligent dialogue about ways forward? Should the news media, strategic communicators, and educators, concentrate more on explaining the background and context of issues? For example, would explaining philosophical background, lessons from American history, possible alternative solutions, and more about how problem-solving processes actually work, help take the hard edge off polarized confrontation?

In the final analysis, will we ever again as a people consider that participatory negotiated compromise is the only true democratic way forward? After all our founding fathers certainly used compromise to launch this country. And, yes, amendments were made along the way to adjust and correct their initial decisions.

Facilitating compromise is a basic tool of the strategic communication profession. It’s a shame that few practitioners ever get to use it to help resolve polarizing social issues such as this one.

Read Full Post »

One essential lesson I learned over the years is that understanding how to address issues requires first understanding their context. Breaking down complex problems into their component parts is essential before viable solutions can be found.

Let’s take the turmoil in Egypt this week as an example. Answering some key questions to establish context might offer clues about options:

1. Is it possible for a religious minority to advance its beliefs and govern the majority at the same time?

2. Is it possible for a military establishment to govern a complex and diverse society successfully?

3. Does history teach that militaries and religious minorities inevitably fail at building institutions, governing diverse populations and advancing economies?

4. Has it ever been possible to cast off this kind of past political baggage and reinvent a government from inside?

5. Or is it more likely that non-governmental entities such as experienced NGO’s, university experts, think tank specialists, and foundations can better assist in rethinking and renewing government structures, service institutions, legal systems, electorial processes, and business economies?

If informed analysis establishes that there are essential historical lessons to be learned from answering these questions, then should not appropriate “talking points” be written and used over and over again by reporters and strategic communication professionals alike in order to establish “context” for finding viable ways forward?

It seems to me that all this should be possible in our truly globalized world. And if not now, then very soon. What we need is a powerful spokesman to emerge with a new vision for an expanded definition of public diplomacy.

Read Full Post »