David Brooks, in today’s New York Times, had a fascinating piece on politics, entitled, “The Two Moons.” The premise is that majority party is the sun and the minority party is the moon, reflecting the light from the majority. Except that, since 1996, there have have been two minority parties, with neither leading nor finding steady footing.

As a former Congressional staffer and former Presidential appointee, it indeed is worth reflecting upon, how fundamental shifts in power further erode public trust, alienating all backers and — instead of driving people to the opposing view — sending the electorate away, scratching their heads.

It made me think about where we as a country are headed?

On Sunday, Tom Friedman in The New York Times, had a piece, entitled, “Make Way for the Radical Center.” In this piece, he mentions a new group, funded (in part) by hedge fund money, that seeks to be an alternative to the current two-party system, that, he contends, has failed to be effective. Nothing new there.

Yet, after reviewing their site and taking a questionnaire, I learned a few aspects of how they are approaching debate on real, germane issues. For me, it was a good exercise.

The group, Americans Elect, seeks to be the first nominating process, conducted via online Convention and with national – instead of state-by-state, primary based – selection.

I appreciated Friedman’s out of the gate slam on pledges. I concur that these politically-based (in the ask, even) pledges remove the very notion of governing in the moment and set candidates up for potential failure when the context has shifted. Normally considering context and changing one’s mind is considered thoughtful and is a key aspect of leadership.

In a recent WSJ article, “A Word to Wall Street: ‘Plain English,’ Please,” Arthur Levitt, Chairman of SEC from 1993-2001, discusses the notion that financial disclosure today is about saying a lot in terms of volume of letters, words and pages, yet saying very little in terms of informing the reader – regardless of their acumen.

Here is some of what spoke to me:

• “Most of it (financial information), I suspect, gets tossed into the garbage unread.”
• “It’s not just that much of this stuff is difficult to understand; it is written not to be understood.”
• “Imagine what would happen if a stock prospectus said: “You could lose your shirt if you buy this”.”
• “Generally, one could predict that the more documentation necessary to explain an investment, the more likely it was to fail”.”
• “For the language of financial disclosure, we need to raise the standard from “potentially understandable” to “impossible to be misunderstood”.”

Mr. Levitt makes a tough issue digestible by doing what he preaches, embracing simplicity. By tackling a tough issue head-on, in an accessible manner he highlights the gap that analysts, lawyers and others often place in the way of shareholder understanding.

A recent Wall Street Journal article, 03.03.11, “Students Struggle For Words” reviews how business schools are adding writing classes and coaches with a backdrop of employer complaints, falling GMAT writing scores and rampant abuse of verbose language. It seems – to me – that a liberal arts background may be ground for resurgence, for finding ways to be more balanced, less complicated an even more to the point.

So math was never my strongest suit. yet I find it interesting that schools and employers can look to stats, calc, and other quantitative endeavors as the sole litmus test of an employee’s performance. I think it is a pleasant – and welcome change that the perspective is aligning with more balance.

I uncovered an interview that I tore out of Inc. in May 2010, which is an interview with the founder, Jeffrey Bussgang, of UPromise who’s now a venture capitalist (VC). In the article he describes the frequent misunderstanding between the entrepreneur, the VC and the other partners invested in the firm.

To me this echoes what I am hearing most days when talking with company founders and/or would be entrepreneurs – that money is tight, perhaps tighter than ever. Sure some deals are getting done, but few are equity deals that hold much promise, especially in the Southeast. Some debt deals are out there. Yet the bank lending has not loosened up, or not that I am hearing.

What to do if you’re a startup and need operating capital? What if you’re an existing firm that needs working capital? Or if going public was an exit strategy, how’s that looking? I haven’t heard good answers and have seen no data that says that things are changing.

I hope that finance – at all levels – can begin to find a toehold so that free enterprise begins the creative cycle. Again.

Re: Commentary – “A Certain Level of Insurgency will Amplify The Impact of Public Affairs Efforts,’ by Tony Podesta

I recently read this commentary and it reminded me of a program we set up in 2004 to make an issue relevant in three US Senate races in NC, SC and GA. What did we do to win all three? Just what Mr. Podesta recommends, including “Go Local, Go Viral and Go Left/Right.” We won by focusing on messaging, coalitions and working at the grassroots level. Reading it was like déjà vu.

Re: “Emotions in Motion: Telling Powerful Stories”

I recently read this excerpt from the PRSA 2010 International Conference and it was an interesting refresher since the excerpted content came from a session I attended. What spoke to me then – and does still – is the notion of , “… the listener “Brain Velcro” and something to hold onto with the description,” according to presenter Christopher Graves, global CEO of Ogilvy Public Relations Worldwide. In addition, I liked this nugget, “create a movie in the reader’s mind.”

I always enjoy good content. I love when you get that plus a great presenter. Graves is both.