I am interested in the interplay between generational attitudes and institutionalized law.

I think this relationship closely resembles the parent-child relationship, wherein the thoughts of the former are by the latter internalized, rebelled against and interpreted in new ways. Each generation finds meaningful new ways to interpret the values of the previous generation.

As generations of new voters replace generations of older voters, attitudes are shifting on contentious issues like gay marriage, immigration, marijuana and gun control.

We are in the interpretation part of the above cycle. The standard model of thinking on these issues held sway for years. In time, opposition to these institutionalized attitudes became aggravated. Now a change is taking place.

I wonder how the values and principles behind these laws will be reinterpreted by the new generation. The key is determining what value was institutionalized by the policy in question.

For example, what was the principle behind banning gay marriage? If it promoted the value of ‘healthy families’, then how will the new generation institutionalize the value of ‘healthy families’?

If the value behind criminalizing marijuana was temperance, how will this generation’s vision of temperance manifest itself in law?

Only time can help us see which values are at the core of these laws, how those values will be interpreted and the new ways they become institutionalized. But I’m excited to see it happen.

“The game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions, for life is a kind of chess.” – Benjamin Franklin

So what lessons can chess teach us about public relations?

Never rush a decision you have the luxury to think through. 

Modern public relations professionals have spent the last digital revolution talking about the swiftness that public relations now demands. It is absolutely true that we should take advantage of opportunities and respond to threats with increased tempo, but not every decision needs to be rushed. We should savor the moments we get to be deliberate.

The planning phase of a PR campaign affords professionals the time to think through their options. In chess, everything is on hold until you make your next move. Similarly, the future will have to wait for the present to pass through. When making future plans for your organization, take full advantage of the time you have and be thorough with your strategy.

Understand the implications of your work.

Suppose you represent a chemical company and have convinced the C-Suite that some corporate social responsibility is just what the PR doctor ordered. When creating your CSR campaign, you will want to consider the implications of a successful campaign.

For example, if your client successfully positions itself as a leader in green chemical policy, it will surely undergo increased scrutiny from critics and journalists. Are you sure your client is ready for the limelight?

Thinking through the implications of your ideas is vital to defending and improving your future positions in chess and public relations.

You can do a lot with a little. 

Consider the position below:

We see that with some scrappy play and creativity, black managed to eek out a win despite being at a severe disadvantage.

Of course, we all want big budgets and big results. But sometimes we can have small budgets and big results. Remember that Dollar Shave Club video? Through one viral video and word of mouth, the tiny startup called Dollar Shave Club became an overnight success.

Don’t move until you see all the moves. 

Another way to think about this adage is that your first instinct may not be your best alternative. In chess, there a finite (albeit often large) number of legal moves available to you each turn. In the real-world public relations landscape, the alternatives are even more plentiful.

Treat alternatives with the respect they deserve. Some days you have few options, but that should only serve to help you appreciate the days when you have many. By attending to all your alternative courses of action and thinking through your options on behalf of a client, you will open yourself to the possibility of out-of-the-box creative alternatives making themselves apparent.

Once the game is over, the king and pawn go in the same box.

Remember that you play many roles. You may be a Senior Account Executive, but you probably remember when you were an Assistant Account Executive. Maybe you were entry level and now you are a Senior Vice President. Whatever the case, remember to value each member of your team and their input. After all, you are on the same team.

This also applies to your roles beyond the workplace as an individual, a friend and a family member. When in doubt, draw on your personal experiences and values to make the right decision. You are a consumer as well as a PR professional. If you think something would not work on you, then take heed. If something feels wrong, it probably is, and when something in your life provides inspiration for a new idea, thank yourself for paying attention to the reality beyond your current position.

There are lots of stories about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie praising President Obama and his administration for their response to Hurricane Sandy. At first I was surprised to see a public figure profusely praise someone in the opposite party, especially so near an election. However, the more I thought about the situation the more it made sense.

This is an example of what happens when good politics, good policy and good work follow one another.

“Good work” in this case refers to protecting and saving lives in Hurricane Sandy’s path. This stewardship is commonly seen as the highest duty of public servants. Subjugating this duty to any other priority would be considered unethical.

Given this, we can talk about what constitutes “good policy.” As I often have said of public relations, good (ethical) policy is the best policy. Al Golin’s famous “Trust Bank” concept explains this well. When setting public policy, the job of the PR professional is to persuade their client to work ethically so that they may benefit from positive public opinion.

The same rings true in politics, and this principle is at work in Gov. Christie’s statements praising President Obama. His first moral duty is to do everything he can to minimize damage and maximize rescue efforts in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. That means using every tool at his disposal, including cooperation with President Obama and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that he often derides. Any self-serving maneuvering or partisanship to the contrary would serve only to derail this primary goal.

As a consequence, this leads to good politics. Although at first glance it appears that Gov. Christie is breaking party ranks by praising Obama, it is a smart move. By working across the aisle and transcending politics, Christie helps enforce the image of himself as a good public servant willing to do whatever it takes to serve his constituents. This is what people want to see in an age of hyper-partisainship.

National coverage of his good-faith cooperation with President Obama and FEMA raises his stature to that of a national leader who gets things done. To be clear, I do not assert that this is Christie’s motivation. He has gone on record to say that he “doesn’t give a damn” about the election and that this storm transcends politics. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, he deserves the benefit of our doubt.

However, we may still use this situation as a case study. It illustrates how the good work of disaster relief leads to the good policies of working across the aisle to serve constituents and results in the good politics of strengthening one’s own long-term national image.

Source

As we enter the final phase of the presidential campaign, there is little more for the candidates to do than advertise, spin and stump.

Today I want to look at the last of those three: stump speeches. I have been reading Ted Sorensen’s autobiography, which has a chapter devoted to speechwriting. As I read that chapter I thought about Romney and Obama criss-crossing the country eight battleground states and wondered if Sorensen’s advice still rings true today.

I have pulled out three of Sorensen’s relative points. The first regards the use of a stump speech, the second and third each point out flaws in Obama and Romney’s speeches. 

“Even a major political speech should not be too aggressively partisan, with slashing attacks on an opponent.” 

This brings us to the heart of the matter. The point of a stump speech is to convey excitement about the candidate and encourage turnout. Negativity has its place in American politics, but, generally, positive energy is what will build broad support and turnout.

“Less is almost always better than more.” 

Sorensen’s point regards using too many words to stretch out ideas. This has been one of the major criticisms of Obama’s speeches. As I pointed out during the first presidential debate: Romney talks in bullet points, Obama talks in paragraphs. To avoid losing listeners and keep engagement high, Obama needs to cut down his language.

“Employ elevated but not grandiose language.” 

This means a presidential candidate should elevate the audience’s sight above their daily lives without becoming lofty and incomprehensible. Romney’s strength is giving a well-prepared argument in a straightforward way, but he has struggled to elevate the audience of his speech above those well-prepared points. If he wants to get out the vote, he needs to do a little less presenting and a little more inspiring.

Properly done, a stump speech is participatory. The audience is friendly and they want to laugh and clap. Speakers must give them that opportunity. Then the speaker must bring the level of participation one step further with a call to action.

As any good communication strategist will tell you, nothing is more important than the call to action. At the end of the day, speeches don’t vote. A good stump speech may persuade or inspire people, but if it does not galvanize them, all is for naught. Hence Obama’s oft-used line, “Don’t boo, vote.”

In the final weeks of the campaign, both candidates will need to tool and re-tool their speech and find the most effective way to galvanize their audience. He who does this best will win the crucial swing state votes needed to secure an electoral college victory and the presidency.