Issue 001
This issue’s brief
Politics, but the “p” is silent
The unwritten rules that shape whether ideas become policy.
On paper, we had done everything right. I had worked on a bill to expand access to college financial aid for incarcerated students. We had quelled opposition, addressed committee concerns about implementation and fiscal impact, received media coverage and moved the bill through the Legislature with broad bipartisan support. I believed in the measure, and I never saw the veto coming.
The veto message supported the legislation’s broader goal. It questioned how many people the bill would reach under the limits of the existing funding program and said the governor would “consider options in the context of the budget process.” I was devastated, and left asking what I could have done better.
Agreement on the goal had not meant agreement on the approach. The support we had built was real, but it had not resolved the final decision-maker’s concerns about the way we proposed to achieve it.
The veto made the objection explicit. Looking back, I wish I had understood sooner how the person making the final decision viewed our approach. The votes told me where legislative support stood, but they could not answer that question for me.
This is the part of politics I mean when I say the “p” is silent. Small-p politics includes the relationships, competing priorities and unwritten rules that shape whose judgment carries weight and which approaches gain support. A proposal can advance through the formal process while important questions about the next decision remain unresolved.
It is a distinction I carry with me as I build RVOS Strategy Group. A prospective client, partner or colleague can agree that a problem needs to be solved while remaining unconvinced about the solution being proposed. The goal may be shared, while questions about cost, timing or responsibility remain unsettled.
In a cordial meeting, that difference can be easy to miss. The conversation is thoughtful, the idea is well received, and nobody raises an objection. It is easy to leave with more confidence than the conversation has actually earned.
The absence of an objection tells you very little about what someone is prepared to do. Before treating a conversation as progress, I want to understand what we have actually agreed to.
Have we agreed on the problem?
Have we agreed on the proposed response?
Have we agreed on an actual next step?
We spend considerable time learning the art of persuasion and preparing to explain why an idea deserves support. I want to give the same attention to understanding how someone else is evaluating it. What concerns do they have about the approach? What would acting on it require of them, and whose support would they need?
Those questions bring the unspoken part into the room. They give the other person space to explain something I may have overlooked, including a concern that requires me to reconsider part of my proposal. I would rather hear the concern while I can still answer it.
That takes trust and a willingness to listen when the answer challenges a plan I have invested in. It also means understanding what support will look like after the meeting. Is someone prepared to explain the approach, work through objections and make the case to the people whose decisions come next?
When you are no longer in the room, who is advocating for the policy?
Today’s Brief
AGREEMENT ISN’T COMMITMENT
Clarify what happens next.
TRUST CARRIES THE CASE
Know who will advocate for the policy.
From the Desk
I’m building in public, thinking in public, and sharing what I’m learning along the way. This is my corner to connect the dots across governance, strategy, technology, and the future we’re building together.
