海角大神

In healthcare summit, an epic battle of elephant vs. parrot

The healthcare reform debate is explained using the metaphor of an elephant and a parrot.

|
Martin Terlecki/AP Photo/Melbourne Zoo

Check here for a of a GE commercial (there鈥檚 both a dancing elephant and a parrot in it鈥揳s well as other supporting characters in this unusual 鈥淪ingin鈥 in the Rain鈥 cast).

The 鈥渆lephant鈥 is not a reference to the GOP, but the 鈥减补谤谤辞迟鈥 is a reference to health care reform鈥 (Stay with me here鈥)

The Washington Post鈥檚 about both animals today, in the context of yesterday鈥檚 health reform summit (my emphasis added):

Thursday鈥檚 health-care summit was the latest episode in an epic battle between the elephant and its rider.

The elephant, in a metaphor originally devised by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, stands for our emotional side. It enables our capacity for love and loyalty and is behind our drive to protect our families. The rider stands for our rational side. It鈥檚 what makes long-term plans, sets the alarm clock and tells us to walk away from that pint of Ben & Jerry鈥檚.

For the better part of the past year, Democrats have appealed to logic with health-care proposal after complicated health-care proposal, while Republicans have appealed to tea party emotion. It鈥檚 been comprehensive reform vs. the audacity of nope, and, if you believe the polls, nope is winning.

How is this possible? Well, in the fascinating new book 鈥,鈥 authors Chip and Dan Heath draw from social science research to argue that we embrace change only by bringing these oft-conflicted systems into alignment. They argue, 鈥淲hen change efforts fail, it鈥檚 usually the elephant鈥檚 fault since the kind of change we want typically involves short-term sacrifices for long-term payoffs.鈥 At the same time, the rider without the elephant is prone to paralysis by over-analysis. Ultimately, the authors write, 鈥渁 reluctant elephant and a wheel-spinning rider can both ensure that nothing changes.鈥

To me, this elephant-and-rider story is not just reminiscent of the health care debate; it鈥檚 the storyline of anything the government tries to do for the sake of 鈥渇iscal responsibility.鈥 It鈥檚 a hard problem to solve and the 鈥渆lephant鈥 in all of us isn鈥檛 just unconvinced, but completely disengaged鈥isenchanted鈥ninspired鈥 BORED.

At yesterday鈥檚 health care summit, the President was indeed in control and acting like 鈥渃ommander in chief鈥濃揵ut more than that he was acting like 鈥professor in chief鈥 (as the in his front-page story and as saying Professor Obama is on a roll鈥︹). But who was listening, and who changed their minds? Out of everything the President explained, got right, and straightened out (like the wise and commanding professor), the line that probably made (or should have made) the most impact with not just the politicians but more importantly the American public (if they were watching at that point) was this one :

[G]ood for Obama for asking Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) if he would really rather have catastrophic care than comprehensive health coverage鈥ut Obama then made the central point of the whole day. Speaking of the uninsured, he said: 鈥淲e can debate whether we can afford to help them. We can鈥檛 say they don鈥檛 need help.鈥

Back to Kevin Huffman鈥檚 column, he also thinks appealing to the compassion in the politicians and Americans more generally would have been better than lecturing to them:

My unsolicited advice: a little less rider, a little more elephant. When 鈥 people鈥檚 eyes glaze over. The logical arguments are good, but my elephant could not care less. Instead, try tapping into a deeper sentiment: This is America. We are the kind of country that doesn鈥檛 let a man go bankrupt because his wife or kids get sick. We believe everyone deserves a doctor. That鈥檚 who we are.

So what鈥檚 the 鈥减补谤谤辞迟鈥 got to do with anything? Again from Kevin Huffman:

In 鈥淪witch,鈥 the authors tell a story about the St. Lucia parrot 鈥 a magnificent, colorful creature that lives only on that Caribbean island. Biologists were writing the species鈥 eulogy when conservation activist Paul Butler found himself charged with figuring out how to save the parrot. Butler had ideas: create a bird sanctuary, license eco-tourism and muscle up the punishments for harming the parrot. But he also had a problem. Most people on St. Lucia didn鈥檛 know about the parrot, let alone care, and some people even ate the poor bird. What to do?

Instead of making an analytical case, Butler went for the emotional. He appealed to St. Lucians鈥 national character. The message: We are the kind of people who take care of our own. This bird is ours alone, and we must protect it. He built popular support for new laws, and today, there are seven times as many parrots happily squawking on the island.

If the appeal to 鈥渆motional side鈥 in all of us had been emphasized at yesterday鈥檚 summit, not only would the politicians have been more likely to see the 鈥渃ommon ground鈥 between them in terms of the goal or the 鈥減rize,鈥 but they also would have been more inclined to work together to find agreement about the really tough choices about how to afford to claim the prize鈥揾ow to achieve what everyone actually wants to do about health care, and deficit reduction, and all the other difficult policy issues that get stuck because people care only enough to want the goodies but not enough to be willing to pay for them.

It鈥檚 like to the President鈥檚 fiscal commission:

[T]he first thing the President鈥檚 fiscal commission needs to do is to start getting out there and talking with real Americans, educating them about why we even need to worry about the budget deficit, and asking them about the (hard) choices they鈥檙e willing to make (or not).

鈥ecause I have a feeling that what Paul Tsongas said was right (that we are better than what our leaders ask us to be), and we as Americans may be more willing to save the 鈥减补谤谤辞迟鈥 of health care reform (or fiscal sustainability more generally) than our politicians realize. They just have to talk with us more about the parrot and all there is to love about it, rather than all there is to think about it. They have to let our elephant in us save the parrot.

------------------------------

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best economy-related bloggers out there. Our guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. To contact us about a blogger, click here. To add or view a comment on a guest blog, please go to the blogger's own site by clicking on the link above.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
QR Code to In healthcare summit, an epic battle of elephant vs. parrot
Read this article in
/Business/Economist-Mom/2010/0305/In-healthcare-summit-an-epic-battle-of-elephant-vs.-parrot
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
/subscribe