Convergence of Policy and Business: President Obama's Priorities

President Obama's priorities would have a transformative impact on the United States in many respects. During the 2008 campaign, he advanced many of these policies in terms of long-term sustainability for the US economy, the national and global environment, and the improved quality-of-life impacts for Americans. Since his election and during his Presidency, in the climate of our troubled economy, he has advanced his agenda as a threshold to not only restore our economy, but also to do so in ways that transform our current struggles into long-term sustainable successes. The business opportunities that are facilitated by the President's agenda can be pursued by Americans of all political persuasions, and, as such, are entirely bipartisan. President Obama has truly championed the vision of utilizing our current predicament as a watershed opportunity to build tomorrow's America.

President Obama's agenda lays the foundation for major business challenges and opportunities, as our national success in each of these areas will improve life in America, revitalize our economy, and establish the US's worldwide pre-eminence in each of these fields. The President's priorities are clear from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, his leadership in legislation on Capitol Hill, and his White House conferences. At many industry-specific and general policy conferences across the country, there has been a clear recognition of the need for -- and rewards of -- concerted, timely action that takes advantage of the Federal leadership in these domains. There has been a broad understanding of the clear confluence of policy and business, from bipartisan perspectives, in a broad range of technologies and industries. Political and business interests are aligned, and results will now depend on timely, focused, committed action on behalf of all those who are willing to devote their capital, intellectual, human, and other resources to these efforts.

In digesting the discussions, presentations, and agendas of many conferences, forums, and gatherings in recent months, many technological and subject-matter areas appear ripe for action by stakeholders in the business, non-profit, academic research, and other sectors. The following five areas are among those which rise to the top of the list of the many business opportunities that are facilitated, encouraged, and supported by the Obama Administration:

• development of an advanced nationwide health information technology infrastructure and integrated, operational system;
• establishment of a carbon "cap and trade" market, based on offsets, conservation, and shifting to renewable energy "clean tech" technologies;
• deployment of broadband technologies to enable all Americans to participate in the digital-based economy (via fiber, WiMax, 3G, WiFi networks, BPL, and other technologies);
• development of technologies that convert high-value waste streams and municipal solid wastes into useable diesel fuels; and
• advancement of broad-based, affordable access to education and job skills training via e-learning that can be monitored and which leads to tangible results.

This list is by no means exhaustive, as there certainly are other fields and technologies in which the Obama Administration is encouraging and supporting advances and business activity. The Bipartisan Bridge community is encouraged to submit additional technological and business arenas which are of high priority to the Administration, and which can have a beneficially transformative impact on our nation's economy and quality-of-life.

Should Candidates and Electeds Be Given Free Ad Space on Op-Ed Pages?

The recent New York Times debacle over the Op-Ed submitted by Senator McCain raised a question that is much broader and more significant than just whether the NYT considered it newsworthy. Usually, the Op-Ed pages are a place for thought-leaders to provide their unique perspectives and insights on contemporary issues. But, all too often, in the case of submissions by elected officials and political candidates of all political persuasions and parties, their Op-Eds are not even written by them. Instead, although they receive the "by-line", the material is usually written by their staff or political consultants. It is a problem that has bipartisan offenders and impacts. In effect, attribution to the candidate or office-holder amounts to nothing more than a political ad tagline akin to, "I'm Paul Politician, and I approved this message". To post them on the coveted Op-Ed pages of major publications is, at best, a dilution of the publication's commitment to journalistic authenticity, and, at worst, disingenuous. It could be said that it offends the social contract between the publication and the reader who expects to gain insights directly from thought-leaders whose views affect their lives.

It is not enough for an elected official or candidate to read the material presented to them and approve its submission, let alone just approve the concept after being apprised that an Op-Ed on a particular topic was prepared under their name. Op-Ed pages are distinct from the posting of a staff-written position paper on a candidate's website because of the presumptions of broad-based social value (beyond the individual's own political advancement) and author authenticity that they carry. Material that is printed on the prized territory of these highly visible pages have a profound impact on public opinion, and the integrity of the material's origins should be ensured for the sake of the readers.

So, how can the media outlets -- and, ultimately, the readers -- take precautions to validate the authenticity and accountability that inclusion on an Op-Ed page implies? What can publications do to verify that the material was, in fact, penned by the putative author? In cases where the official or candidate cannot provide sufficient verification, should the publication just respectfully decline to provide their forum as a dissemination channel for what amounts to a free political advertisement?

Bipartisanship and Post-partisanship Are Likely To Be Central Themes in This Year's Presidential Election !!

Although this year's Presidential Campaign has heated up, and is sure to become increasingly contentious, both Senator McCain and Senator Obama have defined themselves as bipartisan / post-partisan leaders who, as President, would embrace these values by reaching across party lines. Yet, some observers have suggested that, even if their commitment is heartfelt, the political climate which is inculcated in Washington DC will inhibit their efforts to change the political dynamics. Irrespective of these views, it can also be observed that Senators Obama and McCain have differing interpretations of the meaning and role of bipartisanship / post-partisanship in governing, and that they would have different styles in achieving this objective.

So, reading the tea leaves, their records, their statements, their policies, their personalities, and any other relevant indicators, what do you think? What is your impression of what bipartisanship / post-partisanship means to them? Which of the Senators do you think would be more likely -- and able -- to advance these principles as President?