Dueling Speeches

Yesterday was an almost historic day in that two heavyweights in terms of stature "debated" the issue of counter-terroism policy -- Obama vs. Cheney. I won't get into who won, which is mostly dependent on one's ideological persuasion, but I found interesting one part of the argument taken up by both men and it reveals the inherent weakness of political solutions.

Having watched parts of Obama's speech and read the transcript of Cheney's, I think Gerald Seib of the WSJ identified the most interesting contrast of the two approaches ("Two Approaches on Gitmo, No Middle Ground"). As Seib notes, Obama made a clear attempt to strike a middle ground and Cheney was very clear that on this issue such a posture is foolish. Specifically, Cheney said, "The administration seems to pride itself on searching for some kind of middle ground in policies addressing terrorism," he said. "They may take comfort in hearing disagreement from opposite ends of the spectrum....But in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground. And half-measures keep you half-exposed."

It is quite natural for the sitting president to try and take a middle ground -- he is trying to appeal to the greatest number of voters and he must work in a political process. Yet, Cheney's criticism gets at the heart of the real weakness of compromise. Compromise always leads to sub-optimal solutions. That is why when new legislation is passed some of those that sign onto the bill admit it is not perfect. In business, executives don't have to sub-optimize; that is, they can pursue policies that create "win" situations rather than "win/win." I can't imagine Steve Jobs at Apple, setting competitive policy with any other intention than "winning" against its competitors.

The Bush administration got excoriated for pushing the envelope on counter-terrorism policy in part because they seemed to obfuscate the purposes and the details. It is clear the reason they did this--often to their own disadvantage--is that they were trying to play a "win" strategy while presenting it in a political context, which demands "win/win" or compromise.

It's a worthwhile question: Should we (the U.S.) compromise or stake out a middle ground on the issue safety from terrorism? Should politicians try to act like they are operating a business? Can they? Finally, should we in wars provide Executives the power to execute strategies that bypass inherent weakness of compromise?