A conversation with lobbyists, part 2

At the meeting described in part 1, lobbyists were urging Company A to to hire them as their lobbyists and use them to again try getting the government interested in its product.

The plan

They argued that the company had to do three things to get reconsideration for its product. First, Company A had to go to the responsible federal authorities who originally rejected them and tell them (1) that their original criticisms were absolutely sound and correct (even though that was nonsense), (2) because of those insightful criticisms, the company had gone back and solved all the problems the feds had spotted, making the rejected product much, much improved (more nonsense) and (3) thank you so much for your brilliant insights you selfless federal bureaucrats (also nonsense).

The lobbyists made clear that if this wasn't done, there was no chance of its product of being reconsidered. According to the lobbyists, federal bureaucracies under attack just circle the wagons and say no, regardless of whether they are wrong or right. But, if you butter them up, they just might say yes if you give them a self-serving reason.

Second, Company A needed to make key people in congress aware of the "new and improved" product (even though it wasn't new or improved) and then wait for the need for the product to come to the attention of the press. The need for these products come up from time to time as a hot issue. Once the topic came up, and it would, Company A would then unleash the lobbyists, make campaign contributions and remind the congresspeople about Company A's product. Company A's lobbyists would gently mention the press coverage and say what a shame it is that no product had been developed.

Last, Company A had to seize the moment and "leak" to the press its story about its product and the failure of the bureaucrats and congress. This should add some public pressure on the people in congress. The leak had to be handled with care and tact. It had to be done when the topic was hot with the press, so the window of opportunity might be very short.

In essence, the lobbyists were telling Company A that it had to use the press to coerce people in congress to get a fair hearing about a reasonable product. The lobbyists thought that course of action and combination of circumstances might, just maybe, get the federal government to reconsider Company A's product - maybe even buy it.

Company A didn't do business that way. They asked the lobbyists if simply writing to responsible people in the federal government explaining the situation wouldn't work just as well?

The lobbyists were adamant: That wouldn't work at all. They explained that people in congress get letters with good and bad ideas all the time. Those things are simply ignored as "just noise", which was the lobbyists term for it. Simple pure logic and compelling data carry no weight with people in congress. That isn't how congresspeople do business or what they are there for. People in congress are there to get reelected, not to act rationally with taxpayer money.

At this point, I was getting the vibe that the lobbyists thought Company A was just plain stupid, hopelessly naive or both.

Company A said that both Democrats and Republicans would need to be approached but that both were responsible for the failure of this program. The lobbyists said that would be no problem at all. When speaking to Democrats, just blame the Bush administration and Republicans for the failure. When speaking to Republicans, just blame the new Obama administration and Democrats. They don't talk to each other much, so you will not get caught speaking out of both sides of your mouth. And, you won't be speaking with a forked tongue - both sides are at fault.

Company A respectfully declined to hire the helpful and eager lobbyists. Company A sent letters explaining the situation to people in congress and federal agencies. However, as the lobbyists had predicted, those letters received no response from anyone. No one in the federal government cared. Company A went away and is gone.

Where will change come from?

In at least some situations, maybe most, that's how the federal government and lobbyists work. In my opinion this story exemplifies the rule, not the exception. When I advocate for a new political party, I consider things like this. Given that both parties are comfortable with doing business like this, is it reasonable to expect that they can fundamentally change how they do business? Consult your common sense about that.

Change will have to be forced on the two party system from an outside political force. Look at the dysfunction of the Democratic and Republican parties today - they are hopeless. Neither the business sector nor any other major social institution has an interest in changing much of anything. At most, their interest in change is to get further advantage for themselves using lobbyists and campaign contributions. The press is too self-absorbed, co-opted, spread too thin or some combination of those things.

The only force I can think of is a coherent new political party. By coherent, I mean disciplined and focused, just like the Republican party is now. The only way to get that kind of consensus without being focused on political or religious ideology is to focus on pragmatism and reality. Then the collective will of that group has to be asserted forcefully.

We are doomed

Absent that, I suspect that we are doomed to get what the two parties are about to give us, e.g., in the fiscal year 2012 budget. I can only speak for myself, but that is something I don't think I am going to like. Especially after how the fight over fiscal year 2011 played out. You can just see where this is going. From here on out, it is going to be real ugly.

Losing an opportunity and the fight

Where is the moderate or pragmatic voice in politics? Why isn't it coalescing into a political force like the Tea Party? There are other ways to view reality than just how the dysfunctional and corrupt Democratic and Republican parties spin it to us. Time is running out.